Venezuela Propaganda Debunked - People Are Against Coup

[juleswin]

I wasn't aware that point was even being disputed.

Do you maintain that he's a libertarian?

Definition of tyrant. 1a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution. b : a usurper of sovereignty. 2a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally. b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.

He is the democratic leader of a nation. That is not the definition of a tyrant. Trump is more of a tyrant according to those definitions than Maduro i.e. a usurper of sovereignty

[devil21]

https://www.globalresearch.ca/hillar...rrency/5594742

One of the 3,000 Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department on New Year’s Eve (where real news is sent to die quietly) has revealed evidence that NATO’s plot to overthrow Gaddafi was fueled by first their desire to quash the gold-backed African currency, and second the Libyan oil reserves.

The email in question was sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by her unofficial adviser Sydney Blumenthal titled “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold”. more if click

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.73100e9eaf9b

Intervention in Libya was a NATO operation and supported by the United Nations. Gaddafi was threatening his own people. Allies in the Middle East and Europe asked for help. The mission was to protect the Libyan people, not regime change. - written by a John Kerry staffer

See how this works? Like Hillary said, you gotta have a "public" position and a "private" position. Guess which is which?

UK Telegraph - Gaddafi is a merciless tyrant
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ss-tyrant.html

[Superfluous Man]

I don't know if he is a "tyrant" or not. How exactly do you know? Or maybe he is just another standard sociopath politician.

A sociopathic politician who presides over the government of a nation is a tyrant.

Of course Gaddafi was a tyrant too. Are we not supposed to say that?

[Superfluous Man]

He is the democratic leader of a nation. That is not the definition of a tyrant.

Generally speaking, democratic leaders of nations are tyrants. Are they not?

At any rate, being democratically elected certainly doesn't count as a reason to think someone isn't one.

This, of course, leaves aside the whole question of whether Maduro was legitimately democratically or not. That's irrelevant to the question of whether he's a tyrant.

[devil21]

A sociopathic politician who presides over the government of a nation is a tyrant.

Of course Gaddafi was a tyrant too. Are we not supposed to say that?

Read my above post #572. Some people seem like they actually enjoy falling for the same playbook over and over.

[juleswin]

A sociopathic politician who presides over the government of a nation is a tyrant.

Of course Gaddafi was a tyrant too. Are we not supposed to say that?

And what is your definition of a tyrant? I wanna see what make a man one. Thanks in advance

[Superfluous Man]

Read my above post #572. Some people seem like they actually enjoy falling for the same playbook over and over.

You can call a tyrant a tyrant without supporting an interventionist foreign policy. Don't conflate the two.

[Superfluous Man]

And what is your definition of a tyrant? I wanna see what make a man one. Thanks in advance

I'm fine using any of the ones you quoted. By all of them, almost all democratically elected rulers qualify as tyrants. For example, they tax their subjects, just to name an obvious instance.

The definitions you quoted are as follows:

1a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution.

Almost always, democratically elected rulers are unrestrained by the only law that actually matters, which is the moral law of the Creator. The very fact that they arrogate to themselves the power to make up their own laws and their own constitutions, and then appeal to those laws and constitutions they made up as means of legitimizing themselves, is itself tyrannical.

b : a usurper of sovereignty.

Democratically elected rulers almost always usurp the sovereignty that naturally belongs to each of their subjects as individuals. At the very least you should grant that they do this to the ones who didn't vote for them. I would maintain that they do it in one way or another to all of them.

2a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally.

All states do this. Those with democratically elected rulers not less than those without them. This monopoly of force is the state's true defining feature.

b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.

See above.

[juleswin]

I'm fine using any of the ones you quoted. By all of them, almost all democratically elected rulers qualify as tyrants. For example, they tax their subjects, just to name an obvious instance.

The definitions you quoted are as follows:

Almost always, democratically elected rulers are unrestrained by the only law that actually matters, which is the moral law of the Creator. The very fact that they arrogate to themselves the power to make up their own laws and their own constitutions, and then appeal to those laws and constitutions they made up as means of legitimizing themselves, is itself tyrannical.


Democratically elected rulers almost always usurp the sovereignty that naturally belongs to each of their subjects as individuals. At the very least you should grant that they do this to the ones who didn't vote for them. I would maintain that they do it in one way or another to all of them.


All states do this. Those with democratically elected rulers not less than those without them. This monopoly of force is the state's true defining feature.


See above.

Can't say I agree with anything you said in that post. For one, I don't believe in god so the line about moral law of the creator just goes over my head. Also, it isn't true that all leader make their own law and their constitution. Maduro and Chavez have lost consititional change elections before which shuld tell you that they are not the ones in charge of crafting the constitution. And even if that was the case, if the vast majority of the people agree to their laws and constitution then can it still be called tyrannical to enforce such laws?

Anyway, I have one last question on the topic. Has there ever been a leader currently or in the past who wasn't a tyrant?

[devil21]

I'm fine using any of the ones you quoted. By all of them, almost all democratically elected rulers qualify as tyrants. For example, they tax their subjects, just to name an obvious instance.

The definitions you quoted are as follows:

Almost always, democratically elected rulers are unrestrained by the only law that actually matters, which is the moral law of the Creator. The very fact that they arrogate to themselves the power to make up their own laws and their own constitutions, and then appeal to those laws and constitutions they made up as means of legitimizing themselves, is itself tyrannical.


Democratically elected rulers almost always usurp the sovereignty that naturally belongs to each of their subjects as individuals. At the very least you should grant that they do this to the ones who didn't vote for them. I would maintain that they do it in one way or another to all of them.


All states do this. Those with democratically elected rulers not less than those without them. This monopoly of force is the state's true defining feature.


See above.

I can't argue with that. I'm a fan of Jesus' admonishment to remove the plank from our own eye before we go worrying about the speck in someone else's. However, the term tyrant is used specifically to invoke an imagination fueled caricature of a leader akin to Mao or some other mass murdering leader, not a run-of-the-mill sociopath politician.

[Superfluous Man]

Can't say I agree with anything you said in that post. For one, I don't believe in god so the line about moral law of the creator just goes over my head.

In that case, the whole discussion you're trying to have is moot, since within your world view there's no such thing as tyranny by any definition. Nor do any moral evils or goods of any kind exist at all.

Anyway, I have one last question on the topic. Has there ever been a leader currently or in the past who wasn't a tyrant?

Sure. Just not rulers within the context of states. History is full of examples of organizations built on voluntary participation with leaders in them. The most important example is Jesus, who is by far the most influential leader in the world's history, and whose model of leadership revolved around his refusal to be a tyrant. He conquered his enemies by shedding his own blood and not theirs. But there are countless lesser examples.

[PAF]

The most important example is Jesus, who is by far the most influential leader in the world's history, and whose model of leadership revolved around his refusal to be a tyrant.

Notable, yes. Influential, perhaps not so much.

Most folks I know quote and pray but they’re the first ones chanting USA anytime we set foot overseas.

[Superfluous Man]

Notable, yes. Influential, perhaps not so much.

Most folks I know quote and pray but they’re the first ones chanting USA anytime we set foot overseas.

The people you're talking about do exist. But the influence of Jesus extends through 2000 years of history and spans the globe. The tiny segment of Christians you may see as representative of the whole are not. And even if they were the majority, if a mere 1% of those who have claimed to serve Christ through history and still do today took up their crosses to follow him, that would still amount to an influence as a leader in this world for him that overshadows all others.

[juleswin]

In that case, the whole discussion you're trying to have is moot, since within your world view there's no such thing as tyranny by any definition. Nor do any moral evils or goods of any kind exist at all.



Sure. Just not rulers within the context of states. History is full of examples of organizations built on voluntary participation with leaders in them. The most important example is Jesus, who is by far the most influential leader in the world's history, and whose model of leadership revolved around his refusal to be a tyrant. He conquered his enemies by shedding his own blood and not theirs. But there are countless lesser examples.

I didn't say there are no tyrants or tyranny doesn't exist in the world, I can give a quick list of a dozen or more leader who I consider to be tyrants. My problem with your definition is that it is too broad. Something is wrong with your definition when u cannot give me the name of 1 elected leader who wasn't a tyrant.

[Superfluous Man]

I didn't say there are no tyrants or tyranny doesn't exist in the world

No, but you did say you didn't believe in God, and that my line about a moral law of the Creator went over your head. If there is no God, then no transcendent moral law actually exists either. So there is no such thing as tyranny, and no moral distinction between a human murderer and a spider eating a fly.

My problem with your definition is that it is too broad.

I quoted the definitions you gave word-for-word.

Something is wrong with your definition when u cannot give me the name of 1 elected leader who wasn't a tyrant.

Ron Paul.

But it's true that being elected democratically into a position of power within a state does put someone in a position of being highly likely to be a tyrant. If you can't see this, then it's your definition that's the problematic one. Democracy is not a check against tyranny, but a catalyst that enables it.

ETA: And also, your new stipulation that the kind of leader you're asking about be an "elected leader" still doesn't narrow down the possibilities just to rulers of states. Lots of voluntary organizations have elected leaders. Every one of us is familiar with many examples in our own lives. And these elected leaders within voluntary organizations are generally not tyrants.

[H_H]

Would you have sided with the founding fathers in the American Revolution?
Is there any Revolution in the history of the world that you would have sided with?
Would you side with a conservative revolution in America under any set of circumstances?
If there have been legitimate revolutions at some point in history then how can you claim that there will never be any more?
If I don't want our government to be involved then what difference does it make?

I will, as I always like to do, take this out of the realm of the theoretical and into the realm of the real and the practical.

And what is real and practical?

What we do in our own lives.

I took part in the Ron Paul Revolution. And I do not regret that; I think that was a right and good thing to do. So there we see a type and kind and method of "revolution" that I -- demonstrably, by my actual actions (again, all that matters) -- approve of.

Today, I, in a low-key way, side with the Yellow Jacket Revolution. I write things in support of them, maybe some other stuff, etc. I'm not there in the streets with them, but I am actually doing some actual things in my life which will tend to support them. So there's another.

Now, as for you and your actual actions in actual life. There is some kind of thing going on with Venezuela right now, being called (maybe? is the Borg calling it that? well, at least by you) a "revolution" but which in actual fact will obviously be a proxy war of US vs. Russia, if it happens. And you are, by your actual actions here on this thread, supporting that thing. For one thing, by calling it a revolution. Again, I don't know if even Wolf Blitzer is calling it that; you might be being even more hardcore pro-war than him! Anyway, as you must know, the word "revolution" has nothing but positive happy connotations to everyone, so by repeatedly using that word in connection with Venezuela, you are supporting the intervention, even while you try to disclaim -- and sincerely, I know! -- that you do not support the intervention.

But you are, in actual fact, with your actual actions, supporting the intervention. I just want to bring that out and point that out to you, because I do not think that you realized that.

Right now, anything that you say which is negative in any way towards God-Emperor Maduro is shilling for war. If you are publicly saying in public forums things about how "awful" Venezuela is or a "threat" to our country or "socialist", you are influencing public opinion to be on the side of Elliot Abrams. You are writing things which are helping the pro-war side. Again, I do not think you meant to do this. You didn't know. But now you know.

[H_H]

Ever notice when the media doesn't like someone, their election is deemed "rigged?"

Ooo! Ooo! Me! Pick me!

I did notice that!

That is a thing I noticed!

You know whose election was most definitely rigged, whose approval ratings are about 22-1/2 times lower than God Emperor Maduro's? And who is actually, provably and admittedly gassing his own people (not a false flag for once?)

Macron.

In fact, do you remember the old Conan O'Brian bit "What if they Mated"? What do you get when you combine fake-president:France, Macron, and fake-president:America, Obama?


+

=


Fake-president:SomePothole.

Uncanny, eh?

[H_H]

More cognitive dissonance. Oh noes, Martin worked for RT! The Russians! It's so hard trying to remember when I'm supposed to believe the Russians are behind everything and when they're not behind anything.

Ha! Indeed, even if I wanted to be a “good” person, I think I would be ill-suited for it. There's just too many contradictory programmings to keep straight and which one is expected to somehow sort out.

I'm so glad I turned off Automatic System Updates long ago. And devil, I'm sure you agree.

[acptulsa]

...I can give a quick list of a dozen or more leader who I consider to be tyrants. My problem with your definition is that it is too broad. Something is wrong with your definition when u cannot give me the name of 1 elected leader who wasn't a tyrant.

Well, you can consider it too broad. But the original definition of tyrant is basically "chieftain"; the subcontext came later.

Also, defining it the way he does, I can name one elected non-tyrannical president (even if he can't): Calvin Coolidge.

[angelatc]

Why do you say it was rigged? .

Aside from jailing the opposing candidates, and the counting discrepancies, you mean? they literally bought votes. They set up government kiosks up outside the polling places, and scanned their national ID cards , and promised prizes.

Falcon, a former member of the Socialist Party who went over to the opposition in 2010, said he was outraged at the government's placing of nearly 13,000 government stands called "red spots" close to polling stations nationwide.

Mainly poor Venezuelans were asked to scan state-issued "fatherland cards" at red tents after voting in hope of receiving a "prize" promised by Maduro

Here's a typical economically illiterate Maduro voter:

"I'm hungry and don't have a job, but I'm sticking to Maduro," said Carlos Rincones, 49, in the once-thriving industrial city of Valencia, accusing right-wing business owners of purposefully hiding food and hiking prices.

[Swordsmyth]

I will, as I always like to do, take this out of the realm of the theoretical and into the realm of the real and the practical.

And what is real and practical?

What we do in our own lives.

I took part in the Ron Paul Revolution. And I do not regret that; I think that was a right and good thing to do. So there we see a type and kind and method of "revolution" that I -- demonstrably, by my actual actions (again, all that matters) -- approve of.

Today, I, in a low-key way, side with the Yellow Jacket Revolution. I write things in support of them, maybe some other stuff, etc. I'm not there in the streets with them, but I am actually doing some actual things in my life which will tend to support them. So there's another.

Good, on all that we agree.

Now, as for you and your actual actions in actual life. There is some kind of thing going on with Venezuela right now, being called (maybe? is the Borg calling it that? well, at least by you) a "revolution" but which in actual fact will obviously be a proxy war of US vs. Russia, if it happens. And you are, by your actual actions here on this thread, supporting that thing. For one thing, by calling it a revolution. Again, I don't know if even Wolf Blitzer is calling it that; you might be being even more hardcore pro-war than him! Anyway, as you must know, the word "revolution" has nothing but positive happy connotations to everyone, so by repeatedly using that word in connection with Venezuela, you are supporting the intervention, even while you try to disclaim -- and sincerely, I know! -- that you do not support the intervention.

But you are, in actual fact, with your actual actions, supporting the intervention. I just want to bring that out and point that out to you, because I do not think that you realized that.

I have made it quite clear that if I had the power to control US policy I would instantly stop all US actions against Venezuela and that I believe Trump should do so.
I think the Venezuelan people should have overthrown Chavez years ago and any time THEY overthrow Maduro I will cheer for them just as you and I both cheer for the Yellow Vests against Macron.

Right now, anything that you say which is negative in any way towards God-Emperor Maduro is shilling for war.

That just isn't true, calling a spade a spade is necessary, people who favor intervention won't listen to you if you refuse to admit that Maduro is a communist tyrant, they will call you a pinko apologist and close their ears.

If you are publicly saying in public forums things about how "awful" Venezuela is or a "threat" to our country or "socialist", you are influencing public opinion to be on the side of Elliot Abrams. You are writing things which are helping the pro-war side. Again, I do not think you meant to do this. You didn't know. But now you know.

Venezuela is NOT a threat to the US and I have NEVER said that it was, THAT would be shilling for intervention, admitting that Venezuela is collapsing and correctly blaming socialism/communism for that collapse is NOT, the truth is the truth and must always be dealt with.
Those who deny that Venezuela is collapsing and that socialism/communism and Chavez/Maduro are responsible in order to oppose intervention ARE shilling for communism whether they intend to or not.

[DamianTV]

[TheCount]

0- 6% tax rate info here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_tax_rates

In copying those tax rates, how did you manage to ignore the 34% listed on either side of the 6% that you claimed? 6% is the minimum tax rate, which would apply only if you made less than $9000

Oh, and there's a 16% VAT sales tax.

Edit: Wikipedia says 16% VAT, so let's stick with that, since it's your source.

[H_H]

Why do you say the election was rigged?

[Various proofs that the election was rigged.]

No, you misunderstand. I’m literally asking: Why are you guys saying it?

Like, why are we not having a big huge thread right now about how blatantly rigged Uganda’s elections were? Because they were, baby! Believe you me! So let’s do that thread. That thread I could support.

[devil21]

Ooo! Ooo! Me! Pick me!

I did notice that!

That is a thing I noticed!

You know whose election was most definitely rigged, whose approval ratings are about 22-1/2 times lower than God Emperor Maduro's? And who is actually, provably and admittedly gassing his own people (not a false flag for once?)

Macron.

In fact, do you remember the old Conan O'Brian bit "What if they Mated"? What do you get when you combine fake-president:France, Macron, and fake-president:America, Obama?


+

=


Fake-president:SomePothole.

Uncanny, eh?

Have you ever looked up Macron's "winning" vote percentage?


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-f...-idUSKBN18401N

[AuH20]

((We)) want to sell them things they don't need?

[AZJoe]

you seem to think that a person or group must either be responsible for everything or nothing.

This is projection. SS seems to think because Venezuela has socialized socialized its oil industry and some utilities (just like Wash BFF's Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Argentina, Mexico, even Canada has socialized large swaths of its petroleum industry) that Washington is now completely free of any responsibility for its evil acts - sponsored coup, regime change, collusion, interference, NGO's disruptions, economic warfare, sanctions, economic blockade via sanctions and threats to other nations, outright stealing Venezuelan assets, sabotage, etc.

Yes we know any form of socialism/economic statism is doomed to cause more harm to the people, including even socialism by Washington's BFFs and US socialism itself. If a country acts to harm itself, that is no justification for Washington to cause additional harm to the people. Washington itself has extreme socialized programs causing severe harm to the U.S. economy and people that it should be focused on eliminating.

Venezuela on socialism is like a sickly fat man in poor health due to his bad health choices. Washington’s sanctions, theft, seizures, financial blockade, is like going up to that sickly man and cracking his kneecaps with a metal bar and then saying – “see what your poor health choices did.” Yes the sick man is responsible for his own poor health choices, but Mr. Washington is still responsible for kneecapping the man, regardless of his poor health choices.

[Swordsmyth]

This is projection. SS seems to think because Venezuela has socialized socialized its oil industry and some utilities (just like Wash BFF's Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Argentina, Mexico, even Canada has socialized large swaths of its petroleum industry) that Washington is now completely free of any responsibility for its evil acts - sponsored coup, regime change, collusion, interference, NGO's disruptions, economic warfare, sanctions, economic blockade via sanctions and threats to other nations, outright stealing Venezuelan assets, sabotage, etc.

Yes we know any form of socialism/economic statism is doomed to cause more harm to the people, including even socialism by Washington's BFFs and US socialism itself. If a country acts to harm itself, that is no justification for Washington to cause additional harm to the people. Washington itself has extreme socialized programs causing severe harm to the U.S. economy and people that it should be focused on eliminating.

Venezuela on socialism is like a sickly fat man in poor health due to his bad health choices. Washington’s sanctions, theft, seizures, financial blockade, is like going up to that sickly man and cracking his kneecaps with a metal bar and then saying – “see what your poor health choices did.” Yes the sick man is responsible for his own poor health choices, but Mr. Washington is still responsible for kneecapping the man, regardless of his poor health choices.

I have always condemned any American intervention, I have no idea why anyone would think I justified it in any way.

But Venezuela has done more than what you described to implement socialism and its people should overthrow Maduro.

[devil21]

Trump and Brazil Pres just wrapped up a press conference in the Rose Garden.

When asked whether military action to remove Maduro is part of discussions, Brazilian Pres basically said that it's not for the public to know what they plan on doing and shouldn't be debated by the public. Trump smiled wide and nodded his head. Trump said all options are on the table then quickly changed the topic.

Authoritarians gonna be authoritative, I guess. Perhaps Bolsonaro doesn't understand that yes, we are supposed to publicly debate things like that, in this country.

[Ender]

This is projection. SS seems to think because Venezuela has socialized socialized its oil industry and some utilities (just like Wash BFF's Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Argentina, Mexico, even Canada has socialized large swaths of its petroleum industry) that Washington is now completely free of any responsibility for its evil acts - sponsored coup, regime change, collusion, interference, NGO's disruptions, economic warfare, sanctions, economic blockade via sanctions and threats to other nations, outright stealing Venezuelan assets, sabotage, etc.

Yes we know any form of socialism/economic statism is doomed to cause more harm to the people, including even socialism by Washington's BFFs and US socialism itself. If a country acts to harm itself, that is no justification for Washington to cause additional harm to the people. Washington itself has extreme socialized programs causing severe harm to the U.S. economy and people that it should be focused on eliminating.

Venezuela on socialism is like a sickly fat man in poor health due to his bad health choices. Washington’s sanctions, theft, seizures, financial blockade, is like going up to that sickly man and cracking his kneecaps with a metal bar and then saying – “see what your poor health choices did.” Yes the sick man is responsible for his own poor health choices, but Mr. Washington is still responsible for kneecapping the man, regardless of his poor health choices.

AMEN.