Indoctrination in venezuela, latin-america's brand of stalinism

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, I will keep confronting you with these pesky facts, although I know you dislike them.

I disproved your "facts" in the other thread. Go back and read it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So you think government expenditures are now a much larger percentage of GDP? Do you have more recent data?

[b]Please list the "socialist states" that you believe are funded without a private sector

Public expenses are never "funded by" the private sector. If this were true, a fully collectivized economy could never exist, which means that for example a primitive tribe cannot produce anything (obviously they can).[/b]

Yes, if fact, he has to cut spending due to the fall in GDP (which of course, he's slow to do):

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aa238gtns_sQ


also from the economist's country data:
Key indicators 2008 2009 2010
Real GDP growth ( % ) 4.8 -5.0 -5.4
Consumer price inflation (av; % ) 30.4 30.3 32.6
Budget balance ( % of GDP) -1.1 -5.3 -3.7

In other words, GDP shrinking, and budge increasingly in debt.

As for your theory, it is mere semantics that you now argue based on the meaning of "funded by" when clearly, even primitive tribes produced spears and gathered food even without given them over to their tribal leader to redistribute back to the tribes. Obviously, if they did become communists, it would still be their private efforts that produced things and the public revenue would come from the private sector.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Yes, if fact, he has to cut spending due to the fall in GDP (which of course, he's slow to do):

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aa238gtns_sQ


also from the economist's country data:
Key indicators 2008 2009 2010
Real GDP growth ( % ) 4.8 -5.0 -5.4
Consumer price inflat ...[text shortened]... vate efforts that produced things and the public revenue would come from the private sector.

He "had to" cut back in spending because he refuses to raise the ridiculously low taxes on the rich - the top rate is only 34%.

Originally posted by scherzo
I disproved your "facts" in the other thread. Go back and read it.

You didn't even try.

Originally posted by Redmike
Keeping ideology out of schools isn't the same as the state setting down a cirruculum.

You seem to be assuming, without foundation, that the supporters of the legislation were wrong. You need something better than "but does that mean it is true? no.".


And newspaper journalists handing out leaflets against the legislation. You think this ok? Journalists are supposed to report the facts.


This is just the usual anti-Chavez junk.

Keeping ideology out of schools isn't the same as the state setting down a cirruculum.

a curriculum that teaches a biased view of history, and that indoctrinates the younger generation, poisoning them with chavez's lies.

You seem to be assuming, without foundation, that the supporters of the legislation were wrong. You need something better than "but does that mean it is true? no.".

there is no reason to believe this bill is beneficial.
The fact that it will have a "bolivarian" aspect to it, says it all, considering chavez's politics were branded "bolivarian", they'll be the same.

And newspaper journalists handing out leaflets against the legislation. You think this ok? Journalists are supposed to report the facts.

are they not citizens with the right to speak out against what they see as wrong?
does that give anyone the right to harrass them?

This is just the usual anti-Chavez junk.

well, I think your post is the usual pro-chavez bs.
but considering you're a communist it doesn't come as a surpriser that you would support caudillos like chavez no matter how wrong he is.



[b]

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]Keeping ideology out of schools isn't the same as the state setting down a cirruculum.

a curriculum that teaches a biased view of history, and that indoctrinates the younger generation, poisoning them with chavez's lies.

You seem to be assuming, without foundation, that the supporters of the legislation were wrong. You need something be ...[text shortened]... r that you would support caudillos like chavez no matter how wrong he is.



[b]

Who says it is a biased view of history? Is there such a thing as a non-biased history?

"there is no reason to believe this bill is beneficial". But you've done nothing to show that it isn't.

If they're being private citizens, they've a right to speak out like everyone else. But while they're carrying out their role as journalists, with the access etc that this gives, then they shouldn't lobby and campaign overtly.


And, of course, it is equally no surprise to find that you oppose Chavez in everything he does. You're happy enough with repressive regimes in South America and elsewhere when they are right wing, yet you bleat away incesantly about the supposedly repressive left wing governments without any idea of double standards.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
He "had to" cut back in spending because he refuses to raise the ridiculously low taxes on the rich - the top rate is only 34%.

So what is the conclusion? That any politician of any ideology who has dissatisfied many voters to the point approaching revolt cannot make any political decisions to limit some aspects of his radical moves in order to keep his government together? Does his self-limited degrees of change in his policies limit mean that he does not hold the ideology that he has pushed for in many ways? Does this only apply to Chavez, or to all politicians in European countries too?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
So what is the conclusion? That any politician of any ideology who has dissatisfied many voters to the point approaching revolt cannot make any political decisions to limit some aspects of his radical moves in order to keep his government together? Does his self-limited degrees of change in his policies limit mean that he does not hold the ideology th ...[text shortened]... in many ways? Does this only apply to Chavez, or to all politicians in European countries too?

It means Chávez is either extremely incompetent and does not know how to redistribute wealth, or that he does not want to. Could be either. My guess it's the latter.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It means Chávez is either extremely incompetent and does not know how to redistribute wealth, or that he does not want to. Could be either. My guess it's the latter.

You may also have to consider the different standards in the west for top tax rates. Taxing the wealthy in the west by such a punitive degree would be so extreme and unnatural a shift as to cause more political problems for the politician in the West than in Europe. The exceptions like I think Switzerland are rare in Europe and more Standard in the West. You may want to consider the different historic standards in the two continents that you're comparing. To mer 34% tax rate on anyone is huge and already misallocates a lot of economic resources for political mishandling and inefficiencies. Hasn't Europe been generally mired in slow growth for decades now?

Originally posted by Redmike
Keeping ideology out of schools isn't the same as the state setting down a cirruculum.

You seem to be assuming, without foundation, that the supporters of the legislation were wrong. You need something better than "but does that mean it is true? no.".


And newspaper journalists handing out leaflets against the legislation. You think this ok? Journalists are supposed to report the facts.


This is just the usual anti-Chavez junk.

Were the journalists being paid by their newspapers to hand out leaflets or were they doing this on their own time?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Were the journalists being paid by their newspapers to hand out leaflets or were they doing this on their own time?

Well, it was the newspaper (their employer in their role as journalists) which is reported as complaining that they were harrassed.

A huge co-incidence too if a group of people who happened to work together decided to give out leaflets together.

So, the BBC reports certainly implies they were acting as journalists, paid by a newspaper, when they were leafletting.

But I've no more info than that.

Originally posted by scherzo
Honduras.

I'd like to hear more about this. My understanding is that Zelaya ignored the Supreme Court's legal ruling and the Supreme Court declared that he should be captured by the military, which then occurred.

Originally posted by Redmike
Well, it was the newspaper (their employer in their role as journalists) which is reported as complaining that they were harrassed.

A huge co-incidence too if a group of people who happened to work together decided to give out leaflets together.

So, the BBC reports certainly implies they were acting as journalists, paid by a newspaper, when they were leafletting.

But I've no more info than that.

If you work with people, you're likely to have a lot in common with them and spend a lot of time with them. Teachers and staff at the school I used to work at used to spend quite a bit of free time together and they generally had similar politics.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If you work with people, you're likely to have a lot in common with them and spend a lot of time with them. Teachers and staff at the school I used to work at used to spend quite a bit of free time together and they generally had similar politics.

Maybe, but the report seems to imply that it was only the journalists present.

I take your point that they may have been acting as individuals, but it looks like the less likely scenario.

Originally posted by Redmike
Maybe, but the report seems to imply that it was only the journalists present.

I take your point that they may have been acting as individuals, but it looks like the less likely scenario.

Meanwhile, a local Caracas newspaper reported that a group of its reporters had been attacked by pro-government supporters.

The newspaper said the attack happened as the journalists were handing out leaflets against the proposed bill.

Yeah, that does sound sketchy.