Can Chavez get any more mental?

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, I'm not the one who copies and pastes acres of text to bolster my points.

You mean your not the one who supplies evidence to back up his points.

I LINKED one article in wikipedia, I didn't select the bits that I favoured and ignore the rest.

I provided the links to everything I quoted, and where the articles were reasonable length I quoted the whole thing (always including the link). Where the HRW report was 236 fucking pages long - I listed some examples and gave some text to save people the trouble of having to search for it to verify - I supplied exact page numbers, though, to make it easy to verify.

I didn't fucking quote mine - and I didn't ignore anything. If you think I ignored something unfavorable, then you damn well better either quote the unfavorable part or state the page number of the report.

I just don't see the point in what you are saying. So the HRW report has 236 pages. Is that meant to impress?

No - it's meant to demonstrate why I can't fucking quote the entire report.

HRW do a report on Venezuela. What do you expect them to write?

I don't have expectations. I don't expect them to lie. Do you?

If they did a report on Britain, they would criticise. Or USA, or China, or practically any country in the world. That's what they do. You quoting them as being critical is meaningless.

I didn't quote them for merely "being critical." I quoted them for the specific criticisms - the statements of fact - and they stated that Chavez was cracking down on freedom of the press, and violating free speech rights.

You're ready to accept their report about the US and extraordinary rendition. Why not about Chavez and Venezuela?

If you've got an opinion, I'm happy to read it. But all this perpetual quoting is crap. I can read the media myself.

I stated my opinion, and backed it up. I don't just make shit up, like you do. If there's too much evidence for you to deal with, there is nothing much I can do about that.

You post to laughable wikipedia articles and call that evidence - you actually think that's better than "the media?" And, furthermore, Human Rights Watch is not "the media" or a media outlet. It's a human rights watch organization.

I appreciate the odd relevant link, but huge swathes of other peoples quotes, to back up your own opinion, is over the top.

For the love of Christ... I was asked for evidence - I presented some of it. It wasn't good enough for you Chavez lovers - so I pulled primary source documents from multiple sources -- not good enough. I dug into a giant fucking report that apparently none of you geniuses could be arsed reading, because you've already dug as deep as wikipedia will go, and now you complain that this is "other people's quotes!"

Are you flippin' in-same, dude?

My own opinion is just that - my opinion. It's not evidence in and of itself. Neither is yours. So, I present backup - sources - factual reports that support my opinion and argument. And, they do - four square - right on point. And, that's "over the top?" Criminy, dude.... You want a wikipedia article saying the same thing? Would that be more persuasive to you?

And of course rendition is widely known about. That's not the point. Should it happen? Do you think it's right? Does it breach human rights? That's the point. ( that you're dodging ).
.

I'm dodging?

You still haven't answered the simple question of: Do you think that because you don't accept Human Rights Watch's report on Venezuela, that you have to reject everything else they say? Yes or no? And, why or why not?

I'll answer your question, when you give me the courtesy of a reply to mine - which I've now asked you three times.

[mistermack]

I don't accept or reject what HRW say. I've never heard of them before today.
I don't know what they say about rendition. I am pointing out that if you are to place such heavy reliance on their words, as to call it "evidence" then you should accept what they say about the US on subjects like rendition as "evidence" as well.
As far as I'm concerned, this stuff is just more opinion. Since when did the opinion of pressure groups become "evidence"?

You're ready to accept their report about the US and extraordinary rendition. Why not about Chavez and Venezuela?

Where did I say anything of the sort? I don't accept or reject anything in their reports as evidence. But as you do, I asked if you accept their verdict on rendition. I'm pointing out your double standards.

You still haven't answered the simple question of: Do you think that because you don't accept Human Rights Watch's report on Venezuela, that you have to reject everything else they say? Yes or no? And, why or why not?

I don't accept or reject any of it. You seem to cofuse not accepting something with rejecting it. I treat it as an opinion of a pressure group. It's just something you read with caution, but being prepared to investigate stuff of interest.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't accept or reject what HRW say. I've never heard of them before today.
I don't know what they say about rendition. I am pointing out that if you are to place such heavy reliance on their words, as to call it "evidence" then you should accept what they say about the US on subjects like rendition as "evidence" as well.

I didn't deny what they said, yet, because I don't know what they say about rendition either. I don't deny that the US practiced - and still practices - rendition. What more do you want me to say about it?

As far as I'm concerned, this stuff is just more opinion. Since when did the opinion of pressure groups become "evidence"?

It's not a pressure group. It's a human rights advocacy group that does work on the subject. You'll you'll have to actually read the report. They are quite detailed, and tell you the basis for their factual statements. They do express some opinions - like whether X, Y or Z is illegal. But, they also describe facts - things that happened.

It's better "evidence than your wikipedia article - that's for sure.

You're ready to accept their report about the US and extraordinary rendition. Why not about Chavez and Venezuela?

Where did I say anything of the sort? I don't accept or reject anything in their reports as evidence. But as you do, I asked if you accept their verdict on rendition. I'm pointing out your double standards.

I haven't expressed a double standard. I don't know what they've said about rendition. If you'd like to link to it, I'd be glad to read it. But, none of that changes what Chavez does, anyway.

[Coito ergo sum]

Chavez exercising his new "decree" powers..... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101227/wl_ ... ela_chavez

[sandinista]

good work Chavez!

More good news:

http://www.zcommunications.org/venezuel ... es-suggett

Venezuelan University Law Creates Student Bill of Rights, “Democratizes” Higher Education

[Coito ergo sum]

No amount of giveaways remedies "ruling by decree."

[sandinista]

[Warren Dew]

http://www.zcommunications.org/venezuel ... es-suggett

Venezuelan University Law Creates Student Bill of Rights, “Democratizes” Higher Education

Students electing deans, eh? Grade inflation, coming right up!

[sandinista]

http://www.zcommunications.org/venezuel ... es-suggett

Venezuelan University Law Creates Student Bill of Rights, “Democratizes” Higher Education

Students electing deans, eh? Grade inflation, coming right up!

pretty minor if that's the consequence. Good certainly outweighs the bad.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.zcommunications.org/venezuel ... es-suggett

Venezuelan University Law Creates Student Bill of Rights, “Democratizes” Higher Education

Students electing deans, eh? Grade inflation, coming right up!

pretty minor if that's the consequence. Good certainly outweighs the bad.

What's the "good" result of that?

[sandinista]

the Venezuelan National Assembly has passed an unprecedented law to include professors, students, workers, and local community members in university decision-making and to eliminate barriers to higher education

The law is based on the principle that the government has the responsibility to provide free, high-quality, public education from childhood through the undergraduate university level. This principle is established in Article 103 of the nation’s constitution.

The law says students will have the right to an equal vote in the election of university authorities, evaluate professors and participate in self-evaluation, freely express opinions, access university administrative records, and receive a range of services including housing, transportation, meals, health care, and monthly stipends, among other rights.

The new law explicitly upholds the principle of autonomy of public university administration, which is mandated by Article 109 of the national constitution. This principle was inspired by Venezuela’s deep history of deadly political repression and resistance on university campuses, especially during the U.S.-backed, right wing dictatorship that ended in 1958 and the subsequent period of representative democracy.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, the "good" of requiring universities to allow students to elect university authorities is.....? Why is that better than allowing students to freely choose among a wide variety of private and public universities?