Comments:Venezuelan polls test Chávez
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Chávez
[edit]And he won again, massively. If he is such a dictator, why does he keep winning? He lost a referendum some time ago, and he didn't take any undemocratic actions since then. He accepted the result fair and square. The only undemocratic actions was the coup of 2002, manufactured by the CIA with the blessings of the PNAC fruitcakes, that love to call themselves "references of democracy". One of them called for Chávez's assassination on live TV. And they call Chávez a dictator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.64.77 (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
If you remember, Saddam Hussein (spl.) also won his country's elections and there are few people, if any, who don't consider him a dictator. But, the thing is that everyone at different times has changing definitions of what a dictator is. According to the semi-reliable wikitionary article, a dictator is a totalitarian leader of a country, nation, or government or a tyrannical boss, or authority figure. having reviewed various definitions, I would say that Chávez isn't a techincal or traditional dictator, but due to certain events in his presidency, that term may not be far from the truth. Maybe due to some inherent flaws in his system (I'm not stating the existance of a perfect system) such events are unavoidable, but if no such flaws exist to keep these from happening, then the term dictator is the best available term to use. Also, I believe the person calling for his assassination (which I'm sure isn't far from some Venezulelans' feelings, all heads of state had someone in their nation seriously upset about their current administration) was Pat Robertson ("Take this guy out"). Not someone in the CIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.13.186.81 (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Then, by your logic, I assume that it is safe to say that President Bush, Saakashvili, Pinochet and Margaret Thatcher are all dictators. Because with that definition, everyone could be a dictator. If the definition of "dictator" varies so much as you say, there can also be no dictators... Only freedom fighters. The sad fact for your argument is reality and History. Politically correct ambiguity does not correspond to reality. It only serves the salesman ability of politicians. It's not Chávez that tortured people and has concentrations camps like Guantanamo. What I really think is, that Chávez is called a dictator in "The West", because he is left wing. If he were to be a right wing guy, I am sure he would have been called as savior. I believe THAT is the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.165.22 (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- How many time have I heard "Then by such and such logic Bush is [also] a <terrorist/dictator/...>." I don't recall the argument referring to political (right/left) leanings as qualifications for being a dictator. 76.97.250.21 —Preceding comment was added at 16:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)