Score one for democracy...

Read it Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071203/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_constitution)

just thought id mention that removing term limits does in no way disqualify democracy.

No, but it certainly will stop a dictatorship.....

51 to 49...wtf? Rigged or are people that retarded?

I suspect Chavez's vote counting wasn't creative enough this time. It'll get better for next year...

And I wouldn't say they were retarded. After being abused and ignored by their political elites, the 'people' swung the pendulum back in the other direction. That usually breaks things.

just thought id mention that removing term limits does in no way disqualify democracy.


You're correct, however having term limits helps prevent unchecked power.

will it really? you could just prop up a puppet and continue by proxy ala vladdie.

will it really? you could just prop up a puppet and continue by proxy ala vladdie.

sad but true. :(

Except that the puppet would have to change out, every so often, to stay within the will of the people.
There's always a chance the guy going up against the puppet might win.
Unless you are of the tin foil hat crowd, and believe the black helicopters will swoop in and make all traces of the opposition disappear with their "lasers"......

:eek:

i dont know what youre trying to say sixee, but the parliamentary election in russia was in no way fair and the cheating was obvious.

I'm trying to say the case in Venezuela has nothing to do with what went on in Russia.

If Putin had limits placed on his term, then he wouldn't be able to change the constitution to suit his needs.

You'd still have to change out the "puppet".

Russia has limits on terms, thats why Putin is now (probably) becoming PM while he props up a puppet as president. He and his majority could have changed the constitution to be able to run a 3rd time, but didnt, and opted for a puppet instead.

Once again, there's always a chance the people will vote for the other guy.
Unless you think he can control everything, all at once.
That's there the tinfoil comes in.

Putin is what Russia needs. The Russian people aren't stupid. He is a strong leader in a country that requires iron will from its leaders. Im glad Putin is there, and if I was Russian, Id vote for him too.

Chavez on the other hand is a moron, and him losing is the best news Ive heard all day. The next step is waiting to see if he does something stupid now and turns his own country against him.

He is a strong leader in a country that requires iron will from its leaders.Iron will and several ounces of polonium 210.

I guess the voters told Chavez to "Shut up " /applaud

It is not that surprising that there was a 49% vote in favor of Chavez' reforms to the constitution, when you consider the number of formerly homeless who now have homes or shelter as a result of his sharing the oil revenues with "the people".

Chavez is shrewd, and has spent the last few years establishing a stronger base so that when he was ready to put these changes before the country he felt secure in the outcome, or as secure as you can feel without a blatant rigged vote.

Fortunately, the people want their country to remain a free democracy more than they want Chavez to be coronated as king, which is basically where the megalomaniac was coming from with his constitution.

Im glad Putin is there, and if I was Russian, Id vote for him too.I had to revisit this... This explains much.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/14/kasparov.protest/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

I guess they're the stupid ones?

Its Russia.

Read a book, FFS. Start with Russian children's stories, it'll begin to explain alot.

In Russian without a strong as steel leader the russian mafia rules instead.

Chavez and Venezula are different stories and I'm glad as hell he's not quite omnipotent yet.

'You're correct, however having term limits helps prevent unchecked power.'

- It's all relative, dependent on the social-political situation in each country. For example, Britain has no term limits imposed upon the Prime Minister.

Britain is hardly the proper definition of a Democracy though when nearly half of their governing body is appointed due to having "royal" blood and not elected at all. :)

Chavez having no term limits and the ability to stifle the opposition would have made him a King in all aspects but title.

'Britain is hardly the proper definition of a Democracy though when nearly half of their governing body is appointed due to having "royal" blood and not elected at all.'

- Well on paper of course a constitutional democracy doesn't look as impressive as a republic does. But in practice I think you'll find it the best system around. But I'm getting ahead of myself. First allow me to laugh at you: haha. Second..May I ask which 'half of the governing body is appointed due to having royal blood'?

If you speak of the House of Lords, then you are having a joke, surely? Unless you are looking at it from the 19th century.

Out of 700 or so members, there are only 2 hereditary royal peers (which I think are the Duke of Norfolk and the Marquess of Cholmondeley), and 20 or so bishops.
For the rest, over a hundred are elected members from both parties, while the majority are Life Peers that, though appointed by the Queen, are actually chosen by the Prime Minister (that elected fellow) and the leader of the Opposition, both of whom conforms to an Act wherein he must choose members with sufficient political experience, mostly from interest/pressure groups, from a wide range of professions, with a balance between male and female.

The powers and influences of the Lords has gradually diminished from the 1880's onwards and today the House remains more as a platform for popular issues and specific interest groups which greatly augments a busy and occupied Commons. If you have the BBC over there, take some time to watch a session, just like watching the Commons it represents a process of democracy that began under Edward I in 1200's and evolved over the next eight centuries to be what it is today.

I don't think it was science, literature, technology or modernity that was Britain's best legacy to most of the world, rather I think it was parliamentary democracy that, in the words of many Americans even, is the finest democratic institution around (I think JFK called the Houses of Parliament "the birth-place of democracy?").

Sorry mate - you'd be hard pressed to slant our system. It has all the advantages of modern democracy, combined with all the splendour and tradition of constitutional monarchy which we cherish over here (you know, "history, culture", all those silly things.)

edit: There's a session on today at 3pm, the schedule is to put forward proposals to amend a Bill of Human Fertilisation by Lord Darzi and then a debate led by Lord Oakeshott on reducing poverty in Kenya.

Thanks for that insight Halo.
Although it was boring as dust, it was informative. :p
I always thought 'Britain's best legacy to most of the world' was its fine cuisine.
Either that or the Monty Python comedy team.

Back on thread, perhaps the Venezulan people saw through the attempt to buy them with all the socialistic programs that Chavez had implemented. Sometimes people want to work for what they earn, not have it handed to them on a silver platter.

Be that as it may, Halo, until your armed forces put away the plate mail and lances and adapt to the new age of crossbow equipped terrorists, you'll always be a step behind. Somebody, please, think of the serfs.

Yes, I was kidding. Since it wasn't obvious, I fail :( Look at the timestamp on that, I was sleeeepy :)

Its Russia.

Read a book, FFS. Start with Russian children's stories, it'll begin to explain alot.I've done more than read a book, I've been there. And you, Putinista?

In Russian without a strong as steel leader the russian mafia rules instead. Sigh. Putin is the mafia.

Russia could tolerate a "strong leader" (whatever that means) far outside the Putin mold. Rather than consider books of children's stories, consider the state of critical news reporting in Russia. Consider the state of the authors of critical news reporting in Russia. Akipt is entirely correct: Putin and the mafia go hand in hand.

Back on thread, perhaps the Venezulan people saw through the attempt to buy them with all the socialistic programs that Chavez had implemented. Sometimes people want to work for what they earn, not have it handed to them on a silver platter.

It's not even this so much. Socialism almost exclusively leads to facism. You give the government the ability to coherce in one realm of the public life, and they begin to invade all.

yes, socialism has led to fascism all over western europe!

LOL, No mention of Eastern Europe?
Most of the Western European nations are not true Socialistic states.
While they tend to lean far left of center, that aren't anywhere near what the Eastern Euorpean countries were under the Soviet Union.
That's where the facism comes in, Wiggo.

Just go ask any East Germans how "Great" it was to be part of the Soviet Union.
While you are at it, go ask Poland about the "Worker's Paradise".

stalinism!=socialism, you retard.

I always thought 'Britain's best legacy to most of the world' was its fine cuisine.
Either that or the Monty Python comedy team.


I do miss Arthur Treacher's Fish and Chips shops.:(

And I love Monty Python! :D


But seriously, the fact that the defense minister who helped return Chavez to power following the coup in 2002 had now spoken against these constitutional changes surely emboldened others to take a stand of resistance. The next few months will reveal much about the true state of Venezuelan democracy, and the leader who has stated he will accept the people's decision.

I still love you Kelraz :heart

So, Wiggo, how do you impliment Socialism, without resorting to the tactics Stalin used?
Or for that matter the way that Chavez is attempting?

please, educate yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

The prime example of social democracy is Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_in_Sweden), which prospered considerably under the leadership of Olof Palme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Palme)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democracy#_note-8). Sweden has produced a strong economy from sole proprietorships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sole_proprietorship) up through to multinationals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_corporation) (e.g., Saab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab), Ikea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikea), and Ericsson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ericsson)), while maintaining one of the longest life expectancies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy) in the world, low unemployment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment), inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation), infant mortality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality), national debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt), and cost of living (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_living), all while registering sizable economic growth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democracy#_note-9).

Others also point to Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway) as an example of a social democratic nation[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democracy#_note-10), where the Norwegian Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Labour_Party) played a critical role in Norway's recent political history by making social democratic reforms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway#Social_democratic_reforms_and_th e_welfare_state) after WWII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). In Norway, progressive taxation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_taxation) was introduced and the public sector greatly increased in size. Recently, Norway's economy has experienced an acceleration in economic growth, aided, in part, by the exploitation of oil deposits.


Social democratic political parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party) are a feature of many democratic countries, and are found in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Europe, New Zealand and elsewhere. Over the course of the twentieth century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_century), parties such as the British Labour Party, the German SPD and the Australian Labor Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party) have stood in elections on political platforms that included policies such as stronger labor laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_law), the nationalization of major industries, and a strong welfare state. Most European social democratic parties are members of the Party of European Socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_European_Socialists)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democracy#_note-4), which is one of the main political parties at the European level[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democracy#_note-5), and most social democratic parties are members of the Socialist International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democracy#_note-6), which is the historical successor to the Second International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_International_%28politics%29). The United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) and Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan) are the only first world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_world) nations which do not possess a competitive social democratic or democratic socialist party.

yes, socialism has led to fascism all over western europe!

I didn't know that 2 countries compromised "all over western europe".

I find it very interesting that the 2 countries that do not possess a competitive social democratic or democratic socialist party (Unless you count some of the extreme members of the Democratic party) also have 2 of the biggest economies as well; Japan, and the United States.

While I'm sure it wasn't your intent, you proved my point for me, socialism stifles economic growth.

Even in the article you quote, it says

However Sweden's GDP per capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP_per_capita) is currently lower than her Scandinavian neighbors, and economic growth is a major issue right now.
You might want to educate yourself, there Wiggo.

surely you cannot be that stupid? did you even read my post? here, let me type out a list of european countries with socialistic parties.

Austria - SPÖ
Belgium - sp.a/PS
Bulgaria - BSP
Cyprus - EDEK
Czech republic - ČSSD
Denmark - S
Estonia - SDE
Finland - SDP
France - PS
Germany - SPD
Greece - PASOK
Hungary - MSZP/MSZDP
Ireland - Labour
Italy - DS/SDI
Latvia - LSDSP
Lithuania - LSDP
Luxembourg - LSAP
Malta - MLP
Netherlands - PvdA
Norway - DnA
Poland - SLD/UP
Portugal - PS
Romania - PSD
Slovakia - Smer
Slovenia - SD
Spain - PSOE
Sweden - S
UK - Labour

i also love how you somehow draw the conclusion that no socialism equals a better economy, while providing zero proof of this, then stupidly claiming socialism stifles economic growth.

I want a 35 hour work week and 4 weeks of vacation.

Socialastic parties do not equal Socalism unless they are the party in power, as in Norway and Sweden.
Otherwise all they are is a political party that can advocate for Socalistic reforms, but nothing more.

And the proof that Socialism stifles economic growth is in the article you linked about Sweden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democratic#Criticism_of_social_democracy

If you had scrolled down you might have read:

The regulations placed on the market by social democracy tend to limit economic efficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_%28economics%29) and growth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth).


You will also note, I did not curse, nor use derogatory descriptions of your intelligence.

yes, of course a regulation free market will be more efficient, it will also be a slave labor market, which i assume would disturb every sane person.

Good thing I'm sane, since I agree with you, eh?
I don't think anyone wants a regulation free market, not even the people who would benefit from it the most. Not all businessmen are Monty Burns or Ebenezer Scrooge.

What I am opposed to is what I see in Western Europe, and what Akipt pointed out; a 35 hour work week and 1 month of vacation is a bit excessive.

Pretty soon, more people have to be hired, to fill in for the people that are on vacation 1/12 of the year.
Anytime you have more than 12 employees, you have to hire another, just to be a "floater".

Eventually, that will effect a company's bottom line.

And if a company can't make a profit, the people working there, won't have jobs very long....

Don't you worry about the economy of Europe, thank you, it has a combined economic power in excess of what the USA can produce. The EU has a purchasing parity power of over $13 trillion.

Although Britain has statistically the longest working week among European countries, I like the siesta style of the Mediterranean countries.

Besides, we have lots of cheap immigration labour to plug that 1/12th gap.

If I were you, I'd worry more about your declining economy and gaping trade deficits.

Good day sir.

Thats why we need more wars to build more better weapons to bolster the economy Halo.

Thats why we need more wars to build more better weapons to bolster the economy Halo.


Word has it that Cheney is now pressuring Bush to bomb the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, based on intelligence reports Cheney has in his possession that the Duchy has weapons of mass destruction.

Last reports I read was they were creating a super longbow that could launch those MMD upwards of 1000kms. Seeing as how they originally created there borders by the distance a longbow could fire this does pose the risk of invasion by said Dutchy on anyone within that range of lethal MMD fire.

Not to mention they have invaded before and hold the Q bomb to further increase there threat upon the US population this time it wont be just New York.