Slashdot Mirror
Venezuelan Interest In U.S. Voting Software
A number of readers wrote in about a U.S. federal investigation into the Venezulean ownership of Sequoia Voting Systems, which makes voting machines used in 17 states and the District of Columbia. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States wonders whether the anti-U.S. government of Hugo Chávez could be trying to influence the U.S. midterm elections. From the article: "Government officials familiar with the Smartmatic inquiry said they doubted that even if the Chávez government was some kind of secret partner in the company, it would try to influence elections in the United States. But some of them speculated that the purchase of Sequoia could help Smartmatic sell its products in Latin America and other developing countries, where safeguards against fraud are weaker."
I want people trying to influence this election unfairly to be Americans
Chavez might be a populist loudmouth fucker, but he is pretty open about what he wants and what his intentions are, not like the current crop of corrupt, deceiptful pigs running the USA, who resort to vague accusations like this one in times of elections because they finally realised that they fucked up across the board and that people really hate them for it.
Do they run open source software or something?
"where safeguards against fraud are weaker"
Is that supposed to be a joke?
I think that the real problem is that Venezuela is in the doghouse of Bush and Company. Diebold which is held by a right wing company is not subjected to this scrutiny.
Before you start bashing Chavez, please take the time to watch "The revolution will not be televised". It's an award winning documentary by an Irish crew who happened to be in Caracas when the coup against Chavez happened back in 2002.
Knowledge is the main weapon in this day and age!
Res publica non dominetur
What better antidote to Diebold could there be?
"Better" meaning practical and effective, not necessarily morally right.
And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
Let's take care of the known threats to fair elections at home before we get too wrapped up in hypothetical foreign conspiracies.
Though a move to open systems would help with either.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Why won't the U.S. government investigate Diebold as well?
But I thought these electronic voting machines are supposed to be secure - so noone involved in their deployment could 'influence' elections even if they wanted to? If this isn't the case (which this investigation seems to imply), then why only focus on one particular party involved in the production of these machines instead of all who are involved?
A GOP risking to lose an election, a less popular than ever PotUS, a largely announced electoral defeat: so let's try to blame the machines, and while we're at it Chávez too. It only surprises me they did not mention the company's CEO is an alias used by Osama Bin Laden or some other scarecrow.
The article also mentions (in the second page) the controversy about Chávez' re-election's, but fail to mention that election's result was UN-certified (unlike someone else's) and the guy in charge of UN controls was Jimmy Carter, not Fidel Castro.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Nah, he just wants to fix his own elections just like the Republicans do. Damn you diebold!
I want to mod this article flame bait. Left-wing koolaid drinkers vs. right-wing koolaid drinkers. :-)
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
What the fuck is the point of calling Bush the Devil? First of all, one of the strongest ideas in the US constitution is the separation of church and state. It is fucking CENTRAL. So why do people insist on tying it back in? I mean, if you can't handle living in a country where the government fundamentally keeps its distance from religion (for damned good reasons) then just, please, leave.
Bush is not the Devil, even if the Devil were to exist other than as an idea.
Bush is just a stupid politician who panders to specialist interest groups and ignores the larger morally sound issues behind the gripes his country brings to him. People seem to center their hatred of Bush on the war in Iraq. Was it a mistake goin to Iraq? In retrospect, probably yes. But hindsight is 20/20.
So he made a mistake. And now he's making another mistake by not owning up to it and getting us the hell out of there.
But, please, at least call him what he is and stop throwing around religious ideas when it has nothing to do with the truth: he's incompetent to lead, not inherently evil.
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
I've had the sneaking suspicion for a while now that, in the event of narrow Democrat victories in this fall's midterms, Republican strategists will try to cast doubt on the safety of electronic voting. Increasingly, it looks like voting security issues are finally going to get the mainstream attention they deserve, and what better way to spin the issue than to pre-emptively associate it with Democrats and that commie Chavez. It's classic Rove - make the enemy's strength their weakness.
He's managed to put up an article that, aside from the bush bashing element, would get no posts whatsoever on slashdot.
Thanks, Dildo, for proving to us again how biased you are and that slashdot has nothing to do with presenting the facts for analysis, only the spin.
Well... that is so long he can stand the sulpur smell I guess. tee-hee...
Seriously though, Chavez is just your average guy who grew up in the slums and rising to power fighting for the little guy/gal.
Clearly Bush&Cheney would like nothing better than to introduce the harmless little fella to some friendly water boarding.
I think Nelson phrased it best..
"Hah-hah!"
I am of course referring to Nelson off of The Simpsons, not the the admiral, or the guy from South Africa..
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
I would thoroughly recommend this documentory/movie. It is definitely not an anti-Bush propaganda film produced by the Democrats like many (who probably haven't seen it) say it is (it was produced by Spanish reporters for a start) and I would probably take some bits of the movie "with a pinch of salt", but they do have some amazing footage of a very odd event (or non-event as most have never heard of it) in modern history. If you like hearing about conspiracy theories than this is one, albeit focused on different factions conspiring against the people of Venezula rather than the U.S.A. (like in most conspiracy theory stories).
Another, kind of similar, movie called "Death of a president" is also quite insightful into the attitudes of the federal American political psyche. It is a British film focusing on the aftermath of an assassination of Bush. It also has some amazing imagary, this time Forest Gump style effects where actors appear to be on-stage with the president at events. Again it is definitely not an "anti-Bush" film, rather it examines how all sides use the obviously fictitious event for their own aims and - with both movies - they really show in the end the only people f%#ked over are the innocent people caught up in meddling by the higher powers.
But of course God doesn't exist. So that means that Bush is doing evolution's bidding.
If Foreign Powers want to easily alter the outcomes of USA elections,
well most of the hardware, from the mother board to the chips, to the firmware,
is all built in various Asian countries...
If North Korea wanted to alter the outcomes of USA voting machines,
all they need is a few coordinated operatives in the companies who produce the subcomponent electronics...
A few back doors and keywords dropped in here and there,
and USA elections fall under the total control of Kim Jong-il,
or simply the highest bidder.
No where in the USA constitution were voting MACHINES allowed to vote - only people,
expected to vote with pen to paper.
Continual reliance on electronics, with no paper records, and no traceable performance -
nullifies the principles of democracy, and yields control of the USA to the
interests with the most technical savvy to alter votes to meet their needs.
Black Pen on white paper, with unique serialized voting forms, printing on carbonless duplicate paper,
Top copy for the vote, bottom copy for the voter. No Bubble counting - Just printed english.
The serialized voting forms would help prevent ballot stuffing.
No software / hardware / firmware / modem / Access file editing / breakdowns / lost votes.
Why is this so hard to understand?
It seems like they Want to enable at will altered vote counts...
This is all about the republicans/conservatives maintaining their monopoly of the voting fraud business.
Whatever happened to the belief in competition in this country?
...how people cheating on their wives are the one that are the most afraid that their wives cheat on them...
Somewhat amusing that after some Democratic partisans carped about electronic voting machines stealing elections for the GOP, now there's a federal investigation into one of the electronic voting machine companies for its ties to leftist dictator Hugo Chavez.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
"Before you start bashing Chavez, please take the time to watch"
I watched this video. It certainly did not make me favor the dictator. It was sort of heartbreaking that the coup almost set Venezuela on a road to decency, but the dictator won out in the end. Now with rigged elections and the laws Chavez passed (including one that requires a long jail term for criticizing the dictator), Latin America is sure to enjoy a few decades of bloodshed, war, and oppression from Venezuela's expansionist "President for Life."
Where were you when the voynix came?
Stalin once said: "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." In short, why don't we have a paper trail on voting machines? Why are we willing to use a system that stops you from manually recounting? Why are we using machines to vote that can only be coutned by one company? Why does the Republican controled congress insist on tabling ANY resolution that would force voting machines to conform to the same "Transparent" standards as the old paper system? Stop, Look and Think about it....
Yeah, it's gotta be the foreigners trying to fix our elections... couldn't be any native companies.
/our/ politicians.
Personally, I'd rather have them doing it than
Fucking xenophobic, racist bastards.
How can he be considered a dictator? He got it to power democratically after huge support from the countries poor. This same support played a part in the counter-revolution to stop the undemocratic assention of a military government. What's your angle here? Have you actually seen the documentary? I honestly don't know how anyone could come to your conclusions after watching it. And yes, I have read of this coup before seeing the movie and I have seen information from both sides. The complaints are all coming from rich corrupt types, the folks that happen to be ruining many other nations. These folk are losing out as Chavez attempts to make his country fairer. Anyone that bitches against that is morally corrupt.
Chavez is considerably worse than just "not a saint". And comparing him to an elected President of the US is somewhat absurd. Anyone who thinks life in Venezuela under Chavez would be nicer than life in the United States under Bush should put their money where their mouth is and move there.
The Big News Page
Maybe, Just maybe the venezeualans cheating will counterbalance the republican cheating and we can get a fair election for once!
The war has cost $340 billion dollars and 3,000 US soldier's lives. It's debatable whether we even made any real difference in Afghanistan, as the Taliban still controls most of the country and will likely restore it to where it was in 2001 within another year or two. The Iraq ware has likely made the threat of terrorism worse by replacing a non-threat with an extremist anarchy.
Even the right wing chickenhawks stated the war was going to be very long and expensive before we started it. By not making the choice to go to war, another 3,000 Americans would not be dead. We could have spent that $340 billion dollars on saving lives rather than killing our soldiers.
The real issue is that there are no good standards in the USA for what makes a secure electronic voting machine. Without a solid standard, companies like diebold and sequoia are going to offer insecure voting machines, precincts are going to buy them, and there's really no way to know whether vote fraud has occured, or will occur.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
If you find the "The revolution will not be televised" you should also go watch this one done by a couple of Venezuelan engineers which shows the background of what was happening and what was actually going on. English subtitles.
http://www.chomskytorrents.org/DownloadTorrent.php ?TorrentID=1516
An astonishing documentary.
The film-maker said we were all free to download it. He'd covered his costs thanks to RTE and the BBC and just wanted people to see it now.
Great movie. And what happened was truly frightening. Not least because (as mentioned in the discussion afterwards) most of the Western press largely ignored it.
The movie vaguely hints that Washington may have been involved. It shows the plotters going to the White House the month before the coup. It shows George Tenet hilariously complaining that Chavez did not have American interests as his number one priority. But the film-maker was keen on people making up their own minds.
--- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
And Bush already find an excuse, Chavez it's guilty!!
Come on! That's ridiculous!
ghostbar page.
After all, it is not possible to trust ANYONE to hold veto power over democratic elections. That's why the procedures and requirements from electronic voting machines should not trust the machines (read - possibility of voter-verified manual recounts, etc.).
If that is the case, why does it matter who is doing the actual manufacturing?
Reminds me of a Black-Hat Briefing conference I attended some years back, where a chain of encrypted anonymous email servers was introduced. A member of the audience asked whether the presenter would use such a system operated by the NSA. His reply - if Mossad and Hammas both ran such a system, he would be sure to route his messages through both. One truely working machine along the way is enough to assert anonymity, and the chances of Mossad and Hammas cooperating against you are slim. I think voting machines should have protocols in place to make sure such a level of trust can be achieved, and then make the manufacturer irrelevant.
Shachar
Our Goverment software shoudl all be made in the U.S.A., but i guess these ignorant states looking for the best bang for the buck and some publicity have neglected to include national security in thier decisions. No way can this happen, none of those votes should count. There should be a paper and an electronic form and voters should fill out both, so there is some way of conducting audit on these machines. There should be a law forbiding vital goverment functions; from being exported or outsoucrced to other countries. NOW I have a problem with electronic voting. I will stick to the thing with the lever... LOL Atleast chaves can log in and fudge around a couple voted here in there; jsut some americans with physical accsess.
"Too bad that bureaucrats' hunger for power is never matched by greater quantities of wisdom or intelligence!!--Could it
Electronic voting equals election rigging. If any other party remotely connected to this mess is automatically assumed to be up to no good then I get the feeling current players have a guilty conscience. Can anyone not see that the dirt simple Indian voting machines are clearly superior to the America's?
FYI, if you need to have your election rigged, just hop on over to fixavote where a friendly election consultant can help you negotiate the electronic voting opportunities offered by current manufacturers.
It has to act correctly when tested but cheat in the actual election.
That and the fact that candidates can be in different locations on the ballot make vote switching problematic. (e.g. some counties will but the R is spot 1 D in 2 then the third parties, others will be alpha by candidate name, still others in will draw lots for ballot locations.)
Doing this at a chip level while leaving your chips functioning well in other applications would be damn near impossible.
Besides both parties have at least one completely corrupt voting district in most states that can be counted on to 'generate' just the number of votes they need. They didn't need electronic voting machines to steal elections for the first 200 years.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Number of countries invaded by Chavez:
Number of countries invaded by Bush:
Answers on a postcard, please.
I submitted about this back in April and it was rejected, now the NyTimes writes about it and it's "news."
Feh.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
Number of countries invaded by Chavez: 1 (attempted) -- when he tried to overthrow the elected government of Venezuela in 1992.
Number of countries invaded by Bush: zero. All military interventions under the Bush administration have occurred with the support of the United States Congress.
And besides, this thread was about the quality of domestic life under Bush and Chavez, respectively, not about their foreign policies.
The Big News Page
So, you've got one Repub who's got a clue/gives a shit. Big fucking deal. Wake me up when it's a majority, then you have a story.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
"These folk are losing out as Chavez attempts to make his country fairer."
Yes, Stalin said the same thing in the 1930s as he did what he did. Hard to imagine someone believing either of these similar guys (who are both rich, corrupt types).
Where were you when the voynix came?
If we're going to have an outside company farking with our election (again), I'm glad it's Venezuela this time: at least they're liberals!
Considering the reports of all the oddities going on in US elections recently, they could probably benefit from some Venezuelan oversight...
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
They are acting in their self interest.
Depending on what they do their self interest might be with the moon bats. Many companies suck the government teat.
All your post proves is that the Diebold CEO is a right winger. Bet he's never written a line of code in his life.
Does a left wing CEO make his whole company left wing as well? Be fair. I bet you defend CNN as not liberal.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I'm astounded that it took 3 hours and 4 minutes for "fud" to show up in the tag list.
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
Every screaming liberal here on Slashdot treats random allegations about Diebold to be indubitably true, unquestionably the reason for their 2004 disappointment.
But here's an allegation that a devout socialist and an avowed enemy of the United States might have an ownership interest in a compnay that makes electronic voting machines, and not only do some folks dispute the allegation off the bat, but many or most of the same screaming liberals actually cheer for the idea of stolen elections as long as the "right" folks win.
Turn in your honest badges, you don't deserve them.
Why not test electronic voting in parallel with paper voting? Check the counts afterwards, and see how correct the eVoting was. In fact, why not keep the paper trail too? Is this really so hard or expensive for a country (yes, my country) that spends hundreds of billions of dollars blowing up my schoolhood friends in Iraq?
Or maybe the current system (notice I say system, not just the current administration) doesn't like the idea of doing things scientifically?
Huzzah! Cannons ho!
While you may have a point, you may want to read up a bit on what has actually been uncovered regarding electronic voting manipulation by the 'Right':- things-to-come-in-november.html
http://weazlsrevenge.blogspot.com/2006/10/sign-of
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545 689805144
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
> I also think that al-Qaida would vote G.W.Bush:
If memory serves GWB was endorsed by both Osama Bin Laden and Vladimir Putin in the days before the 2004 election.
Which has to be a first.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
First: Diebold changed motherboards in Maryland in 2005, and denies any votes were lost.
Second:
Interesting choice of words.Third, about those "responsible" for decision making re: national security:
Q--Now, if fighting supposed terrorism, is so damn important, why the hell even bother w/Chavex?
Q--How do Bush, Cheney and their cronies make their money?
A--OIL
thanx!
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Forgive me for not buying the fact that a miserable country would rather have a white pro-business puppet-of-Washington president than a Bolivarian indigeneous one who grew up in the slums and wants to distribute the wealth (look at what he achieved thru cooperatives!).
Res publica non dominetur
Noam Chomsky just recently was talking about the differences between the Venezuelan elections and the US elections - it's like night and day - with Venezuela being by far more honest and fair and involving a truly interested electorate.
The US hasn't had a fair election in six years and won't have one next week either - even assuming Bush doesn't try bombing the vote fraud off the front page with an attack on Iran.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
"Venezuelan Interest In U.S. Voting Software"
At least SOMEONE is interested in the potential misuse of software in U.S. voting!
Disclaimer: i am venezuelan, and not a follower of Chavez.
t _pol1.shtml/ )
This is partially true. Originally, the goverment was part-owner of Smarmatic. No wonder they got chosen to supply the hardware for elections here.
As soon as the public found out, they sold their percentage of ownership.
The hardware smartmatic sells is a model that was intended to be used in Lottery calculations (source: http://buscador.eluniversal.com/2004/06/14/pol_ar
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
The regime has done a gigantic electronic fraud. And it has been proved in a couple of papers:
p df
Please see http://gentederedes.org/referendum/delfino-salas.
Also see http://isi.cbs.nl/ISR/papersisr.htm
"A statistical approach to assess referendum results: the Venezuelan recall referendum 2004" by M.M. Febres Cordero & B. Marquez
I hope so. I'm from Uruguay, and elections here are MUCH better safeguarded than the ones in the US - for one, there is a paper trail.
For the 2000 elections I was a representative for a small party and was an observer at the vote counting (there was an observer at each polling station for every party in most urban areas, plus independant observers). It was of course voluntary work (non-paid).
Let me know if such measures are implemented in the US - last I heard, they aren't. I was proud to be a watchman of our democratic process, and this is South freaking America.
Unfortunately, countries such as Venezuela or Cuba (or the US) don't inspire in me the same confidence.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
How dare AVPAC try to influence the US government!
"""Number of countries invaded by Bush: zero."""
Incorrect. The first country he invaded was the United States of American, in 2000.
It does, but it shouldn't.
We should be demanding enough transparency in voting machines that it wouldn't make a difference if they were being programmed by Karl Rove or by Boss Tweed. Either they're clean or they're not, and it's wrong that we have to guess which based on who owns the manufacturer.
We have "poll watchers" but it's a joke when it comes to computerised voting. What can you watch?
With paper ballots and and empty box, anyone can sit and watch the count, it is transparent. Whereas, the computer claims such and such is the count, and if there's a dispute *they just run the program again*. DUH.
Once over here in Georgia where I live I was first in line at the polls, so I got the honor of being ballot box inspector. They unlock the box, you look in and see it is empty then verify it in front of all the witnesses present, then it is locked back up. Cool, all you need is some eyes that work. Now?? No way to do that. So they have it both ways, the thing can come pre hacked, then the resultant super-count later can be hacked as well-and no one can prove any different, because no one is allowed to look at how it is programmed or run. It gets "certified" by a few entrenched governmental party hacks, that's it.
I tried to file a protest the very first time I was forced to use a diebold machine, they (the poll officials in my voting precinct) couldn't even comprehend how insecure it was and how the vote could be manipulated. I mean, brainwashed, it's a computer so it must be correct!
I still vote but I think the chances of it being a clean election anymore is about zero. Those machines appear to be *designed on purpose* so that just a few people can control the election.
Before you had to have at least one crooked guy per important precinct to "stuff a ballot box", now all it takes is one programmer and a few insiders to swing whole races probably. I seriously think the last three elections (2000-2 and 4) where all manipulated extensively. I know here when we first went statewide with the machines (and we were the first state in the US to do this) that both the pre- and post- election polls did not reflect the actual official tally in several key races. Surprise surprise. We even got our first R governor since the end of the civil war. Up to then the pre and exit polls were usually pretty close and almost always correct in predicting the winners. Add in the blackbox computers, now they were off just enough. I think that is just a little bit too coincidental.
So let's see how our resident liberals react when the shoe is on the other foot. Quick to attack Diebold as "obviously" fixing the election... will we get the same presumption of guilt for Mr Chavez, or will it be dismissed out of hand?
For the real reason the USA is positioning itself to invade Venezuela, please watch the documentary video:
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
it must be true.
Please.
Chavez is the typical Latin American dictator incarnate. The consolidation of power under Chavez in the Executive branch of the Venezuelan government can't hold a candle to anything that has occurred in the U.S. in the past 6 years. If you hate Bush for much of what he's done, I imagine you'd hold a special dislike for Chavez.
Put down the Chomsky, and educate yourself. I hate citing Wikipedia as a source, but this particular article has so many primary sources listed at the bottom that it works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez#2002:_Co
"While Chávez was brought to a military base and held there, military leaders appointed the president of the Fedecámaras, Pedro Carmona, as Venezuela's interim president. Carmona's first decree reversed all of the major social and economic policies that comprised Chávez's "Bolivarian Revolution"... Carmona also dissolved both the National Assembly and the Venezuelan judiciary,..."
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
I'm sure glad Carmona was stopped, so now there are no checks and balances on Chavez' dictatorial powers. Because Chavez says he is doing it "to help the poor", the dictator can do no wrong.
Where were you when the voynix came?
"He can't and doesn't need to cite a source. If the CIA did do something, then one of the results would be that nobody would have evidence that they did it."
The Perfect Argument! Anything anyone can claim that the CIA did, it means they actually did it. It's the natural logical result of the fact that if the CIA did do something, there would be no evidence of it. Lack of any evidence, naturally, is proof of the assertion.
Where were you when the voynix came?
It would be impossible to cross match every registered voter against every other. But knowing the match search process was running all the time and prison was waiting would help keep registration fraud to a minimum.
Then watch the democrat party howl. They call asking for ID racist.
In any case I don't accept subtracting 16000 some votes from a precenct with 800 voters is a viable attempt at messing with the election.
There was no chance it would not be noticed instantly (as it was, damn hicks). If you had control to the level you claim they could have done it with small percentage changes which would be less likely to be noticed.
You want to see evidence of a fixed election look at the last one from Venezuela.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You've been listening to too much USA propaganda. I don't know where you get the idea that Chavez is a dictator. He was democratically elected, and reinstated the Venezeulan Congress and Judicial System as soon as he was restored by the people as the properly elected President of Venezeula. He may be a socialist, but he is an *elected* socialist.
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
There's no need to seek the facts. The evidence leaves no doubt...you are absolutely wrong. Bush wasn't given authorisation to fix the evidence and facts around his plan for war, nor did many legisaltors back war not authorised by the Security Council.
Here's just a few of the many remarks by Senators, which seem to contradict your assertion:
"Was it clear to the Senator that the President showed the American people that every option is being explored before a military option is exercised? I ask this question because I hear time and again from many Americans, who either are opposed to any military intervention or have not made up their minds, that they seem not to have confidence that the President is exercising every option. He is coming to Congress to get approval from both Houses of Congress. We have had significant debate, and we will have significant debate.
We are working at the Security Council level. We are making it absolutely clear that tomorrow Saddam Hussein, if he did away with his weapons of mass destruction, destroyed the laboratory and allowed complete and comprehensive inspections, would probably remove the threat he now faces. It is Saddam Hussein who has continued for the last 11 years.
My question to the Senator is, Do you think the President's speech last night went some distance in convincing the American people that neither the President nor the Senator from Connecticut, nor I, nor the Senator from Virginia, nor the Senator from Indiana, choose the military option? We are sending young Americans into harm's way. As successful as this operation may be, we will still lose some brave young Americans' lives. That is the reality. That is why we avoid it at all costs. "
Senator McCain
"This is the last option. What we are doing in the Senate today, tomorrow, and when that vote comes is to vote our conscience, 100 individuals, to do our very best to deter the use of force but to make it clear that our Constitution has given this President and every President who has preceded him, and every President who will come after, the authority to utilize all the assets of our Nation, principally the men and women of the Armed Forces, to secure our interests and protect our people.
.]
:
[. .
Last night, we listened carefully to our President as he addressed the Nation to provide the leadership necessary with regard to this very serious issue of Saddam Hussein and eliminating his weapons of mass destruction. Speaking just for myself, but I think it is shared by other Senators, this President has shown remarkable courage. We would not be here today in this debate, we would not be watching the debate in the United Nations on a possible 17th resolution, we would not be seeing our country focusing on this issue, had it not been for George Bush, our President, having the foresight to see the essential need for the United States to lead at this time. Not tomorrow, not the next day, not the next month, not the next year, but now in the effort of the free world to rid Saddam Hussein of the weapons of mass destruction.
We owe a debt of gratitude to that President, who, in clear, forthright, and often soft tones of voice, last night addressed the Nation with the need for action now.
Senator Warner
"I support this resolution not because I favor a resort to war but because I believe this resolution gives our country the best chance to maintain peace.
I support this resolution not because I favor America acting unilaterally, unless we must, but because I believe this resolution gives us the best opportunity to rally our allies and convince the United Nations to act with us, and in so doing give that international institution meaning for the resolutions that it adop
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
What if the republican right has planned all along to build doubt about electonic voting via the inherently flawed Diebold machines. Now with their seeds of doubt they can attempt to overturn some of the legitimate "throwing the bums out" this November.
Bush hasn't nationalized his country's only real industry (in Chavez's case, oil) and started using it as a subsidized way to prop up leftist politicians in other countries.
Point of fact, neither has Chavez, Chavez was first elected in 1999, PDVSA the National oil business was nationalized in the 1970s. What Chavez did was change the management of the company, before, the management would take the profits of PDVSA and pocket them, nowadays, that money is used to fund public works projects, farmers co-ops, etc. Not one cent of that money was spent on ANY political candidates outside the country, can't say the same for the NED in the USA.
Bush hasn't issued edicts about what percentage of music broadcast in Venezuela has to be of a certain type or origin.
Actually, this isn't unusual, many nations do this, and I don't think France, Australia, nor Germany are dictatorships.
He doesn't shut down journalists for speaking out against him, or imprison opposing political candidates.
So far not ONE journalist is in jail for simply speaking out against Chavez and not one TV station, nor newspaper, has been shut down. Also those who supported the ILLEGAL coup against Chavez are the ones being investigated. So far, I believe a few had to show up to court a few times, others are hiding out in Miami.
As far as his foreign policy, its no worst than ours, with our "brothers in arms" like Pakistan(Osama's hideout), or Saudi Arabia(Osama's bankroll).
He doesn't buy temporary favor from poor people by doling out food when the cameras are watching, but completely neglect the most crime-ridden, murderous, corrupt thug culture in the region.
Colombia is a sovereign nation, and Chavez has no control over it. As far as the temporary favor you apparently dismiss, let's see, due to new literacy programs, Venezuela's literacy has more than doubled, due to an agreement with Cuba, Venezuelans now have access to health care. I could go on, but you get the idea.
Hugo Chavez has offered free heating oil to needy US Citizens due to high prices. This is hardly the actions of someone who wants to "bury" you. Chavez does not like the Busheviks, and vice-versa. The Busheviks try to confuse the issue by projecting Chavez's general loathing for W with a non-existent loathing for the USA.
Chavez is kind of over the top. But we have to remember he is not catering to a US media market, he is catering to his constituancy.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Hugo Chavez is a socialist who is bitterly opposed by the Venzuelan oligarchs. Exactly WHO may I ask would corrupt him?
The guy is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But I think you need to apply the same standards to the Bush administration. It makes one more consistent AND you are actually a constituent of the United States.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
All the Chavezista machines would favor the Democrats. All the Bushista machines would favor the GOP'ers. This
way they cancel each other out. Ill wind that blows no one any good.
You don't hear about Sequoia as much as Diebold and ES&S because Sequoia doesn't handle as much of the US vote by percentage, though if remember right they've got a chunk of precincts in some key states like Florida.
It is heartbreaking when the majority gets their way over the interests of powerful kingmakers, no? Did you miss that Chavez was brought back by popular uprisings in Caracas?
Do you have any proof of this? Let's not forget that both the Carter Center and the OAS certified the 2004 referendum as fair and open. What about the studies of Mr Hausman and Mr Rigoban? Oh yeah, the results were reviewed and found to be within the range of statistical possibility. That means you can't claim that the statistics clearly indicate fraud. Let's also keep in mind that these statistical studies are the kind of thing summarily tossed aside when people complain about the final results not matching exit polls in the 2000 US election.
In fact, as someone who has actually worked inside Venezuelan electoral events for the last 18 months, I find that the elections are much more open than they are here. Both the electoral roll system and the voting system are audited by the opposition and observers down to the level or source code for some of the audits. There is a paper trail. Try auditing a Diebold machine here or getting some kind of receipt for your electronic vote.
I'd also like to point out that the profound incompetence and fractiousness of the opposition is what keeps Chavez in office. If the various major opposition parties were to unite behind a single candidate, that candidate would have a good chance of winning an election. Unfortunately, the infighting among the opposition will prevent this from ever happening.
In the last election the National Electoral Council capitulated to the demands of the opposition, and the opposition then boycotts the election anyway! This supreme error by the opposition gave all of the legislature to Chavez. The opposition played a dangerous bluff and they lost, so they have no one but themselves to blame for being shut out of power.
In closing, let me say that I do not think Chavez is any better or any worse than any other democratically elected leader. My family and I have lived in countries like Venezuela long enough to recognize his particular brand of populism and demogoguery. I just think the constant demonization is out of place in a real discourse on the issue of Venezuela and socialism in Latin America in general. Remember - how many democratically-elected US governments have been overthrown by Latin American countries? How many democratically-elected Latin American governments have been overthrown by the US or US proxies? Answer this question honestly and I think maybe you will understand some of the anti-American sentiment coming out of Latin America.
Chao.Actually, it is a little surprising he'd skip a joke like that.
But I want to press you for details: what live speech are you referring to? Doing google news searches on this, I turn up nothing. Google web searches turn up some hits on similar phrases, but certainly not identical ones. The line "we can bury US imperialism" comes up in different places, but that's a little different from saying you want to bury the US (I'm a US citizen myself, and I'd love to see US imperialism buried, nothing would be better for the US than to get the hell out of the empire game).
One of the reasons I'm being fussy about the details here is the US press has already shown a remarkable ability to quote Chavez innaccurately... e.g. in the famous "devil" routine where he recommended the Chomsky book "Hegemony or Survival", the New York Times claimed that he apparently thought that Chomsky was dead, but he was actually talking about John Kenneth Galbraith when he said he wished he had had a chance to meet him.
www.leechvideo.comhttp://leechvideo.com/
- Former CIA Agent Affirms Possibility of Chavez's Assassination in Venezuela
- Venezuela's 'Anti-Bush' Fears Assassination
- Declassified CIA Documents Show United States Had Detailed Information Regarding The April 2002 Coup In Venezuela
This looks like a nice summary of what's been going on from the left-wing point of view:It's a list of claims that Chavez has lied about this or that. Some of them sound like reasonably serious issues, most of them strike me as small beans, and over all I have no sense of why I should believe what the fellow is saying.
He apparently used to work for the New York Times, but then quit to focus on more partisan writing: Financial Times Reporter "Can't Possibly Be Neutral"
As you might expect, there are people who are critical of his writing:
Oh, you know, he probably wanted to show that he had a sense of humor, and was just one of the boys. Maybe he should've announced that he'd just signed legislation to outlaw Russia forever.
And will the Republican sock-puppets suddenly admit that there's a chance that Diebold machines can be corrupt, now that there are accusations about Sequoia?
Anyway, there have already been many complaints about Sequoia, I don't see why they should change now: Bev Harris: Inside Sequoia's Vote Counting Program
Someone high up in the Admin is pulling some string to try and cast a cloud of FUD over the company so they can mandate using Diebold as the "Official" voting machine of the USA.
"Its my right to speak freely and I'm going to use it while I still have it" -Me
You should blindly trust them, just like you do Diebold! Tow the party line people! We have an un-winable war to win!
Rah rah rah!
Katherine Harris for Supreme Court!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
The war in Iraq is only exhausting the ground forces.
In short, the war in Iraq leads to a shortage in shoes, but not in guns.
At least Venezuala is still a democracy. I would be more worried about the powerful Republican interests that hold a stake in Diebold. They are the ones that appear to have a history of involvement in electoral fraud, and the installation of the current US dictator.
Why would President Chavez want to install anyone by another Bush. Bush is doing more to destroy America than any external interest could hope to do.
See the current front-page interview with Chavez on aljazeera.net.
He explicitly states he is not anti-US, he has good friends who are US citizens and he has nothing against the US people. Indeed Venezuela has actually double the amount of fuel it donates to poor US citizens over the winter months when they're own government is quite happy to let them freeze.
He *is* anti-Bush which due to your political system of confusing the head of state with the executive leader means that some of your citizens will take them to mean the same thing. But as the statisticians have shown Bush wasn't actually duely elected; he and his cronies threw it. Chavez was put in charge by his population.
For the Slashdot editors to publish on the front-page "Chavez is Anti-US" is a new low for Slashdot.
Thanks for the recommendation of that documentary. I just watched it on Google video, and while I knew that US gov't/media propaganda against Chavez was bad, I didn't know enough about it to realize it was that bad.
The film really shows in graphic detail how significantly a corrupt media can affect a country. It really hits home. Though I don't know if the American people would be strong enough to regain their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights as the Venezuelan people were.
You might also wanna check out "outfoxed: Rupert murdoch's war on journalism". It's a pretty objective Canadian piece that shows the extent of the US propaganda. If any single individual/lobby had as much power here in Europe (or elsewhere for that matter), people would surely revolt.
Res publica non dominetur
Great recommendation. I have seen that. It's frightening some of the corporate/party lines the reporters are demanded to follow, passed down from headquarters.
Brave New Films actually released the interviews from that documentary as Creative Commons, so I posted it to Google Video a while back: Outfoxed Interviews. Looks like someone else posted the full documentary.
I have to post about "how do you watch the machines?". That's how it's done down here, and I have a fairly high confidence in our system:
1. The machines are sent two or three months in advance to each of the tens of thousands election's zone Electoral Judges.
1.a. Judges here are not elected officials; they are tenured, and they are put in office thru a series of exams.
1.b. All Judges' actions are oversaw by a District Attorney.
2. His/Her Honor has the obligation of checking if the machines are working properly. What (s)he does is:
2.a. turn on some (>30%) of the machines in his office, set the clock to the 7:30 at elections day.
2.b. spend the whole day submitting fake votes, keeping tabs on what is being done (Judge can delegate this task to a Justice employee (s)he trusts). They are oriented to use 80%+ of the votes regiters to put the votes on the machine.
2.c. get the results from the machine, check if there is no bias.
2.d. rinse, repeat; some of the machines are checked in the day before the election;
2.e. it's His/Her Honor the responsability that the machines are properly locked and with their seals intact, all the time.
3. You can bet that any anomalies detected would be cried out loud.
This is a highly-distributed process; after election day, partials per-machine are posted in the door of the electoral zones and distributed to the press, so local and national press representatives can do the tabulation themselves and detect anomalies. As we have a single system nationwide, we can tabulate our hundred million votes in less than one day -- and worry less about fraud. And at least once, we elected the "opposing" candidate (with a large margin) to prove it.
So, yes, we reelected the same asshole yesterday, but no, it's not because he frauded the election, but because we have many moron voters. And because the other candidate was a larger asshole. But that is another problem, unreleated to the "unfraudability" of our e-ballotboxes.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
"It is heartbreaking when the majority gets their way over the interests of powerful kingmakers"
No, it was just heartbreaking that a slick and brutal fascist dictator prevailed in the end, and closed the door to any hope of democracy in Venezuela. You don't think he's any worse than any other leader (we can discard the idea that he is democratic)? Chavez demonizes others, nobody demonizes him. Remember his big speech on how Jews are the big evil that must be stopped. This sort of fits with his speeches in approval of Iran building nuclear bombs. For another, Chavez is a self-proclaimed socialist. This means that he makes no bones about the idea that his goal is to get as much power for himself. This makes him much worse than other leaders who do not subscribe to the brand of fascism known as socialism.
"how many democratically-elected US governments have been overthrown by Latin American countries?"
Single-party dictatorships are not democratic governments, even if they got into power originally by an election. Answering the question honestly, the US overthrow 0 democracies in Latin America. The "anti-American sentiment coming out of Latin America" is based in ignorance and jealousy; there is no good reason for it.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Bull, Stalin's goal was to consolidate power under the guise of reforms. Chavez has created a constitution and made Venezuelans aware of their rights. He's practically an all-American hero, at least he would be if he wasn't counter to your current economic interests. What he has done is very similar to the Boston Tea Party, and you guys are just coming off here as an pissed-off British Empire.
So, now a 3rd World country is trying to dictate the electoral results in the USA?
That's strange, usually it's the other way around!
"Bull, Stalin's goal was to consolidate power under the guise of reforms"
That's exactly what Chavez is doing.
"Chavez has created a constitution and made Venezuelans aware of their rights"
It has done that, alright, since they have fewer rights under it.
"He's practically an all-American hero, at least he would be if he wasn't counter to your current economic interests"
"Our economic interests" have nothing to do with this; he's a fascist dictator plain and simple.
"What he has done is very similar to the Boston Tea Party, and you guys are just coming off here as an pissed-off British Empire."
That would be valid exept the truth is opposite of your analogy.
Where were you when the voynix came?
" I just watched it on Google video, and while I knew that US gov't/media propaganda against Chavez was bad, I didn't know enough about it to realize it was that bad."
"Propaganda" being information you do not like? This documentary had a very bad ending; as the Venezuelans lost their rights as the dictator prevailed in the end. The title is idiotic anyway: it was televised.
Where were you when the voynix came?
If you don't like Fox News, why not just change the channel? It's not like it has any huge influence: only a minority pay attention to it. Thanks, also for the obligatory use of the term "propaganda" as a meaning-free pejorative to mean "information I happen to not like.".
Looks like you have been outfoxed by a movement that wants to censor Fox News for not sharing its political ideology. So much for tolerance, and "if you don't like what someone says, ignore it". The far-left's fictional case "against" Fox News reminds me so much of when the far-right makes a big case "against" CBS, also as part of building a case to have licenses pulled (or other forms of censorship).
I know I don't get all bent out of shape because some part of the press says stuff I happen to not like.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Well I guess turnabout is fair play...
...sheesh..I'll stop there.
Did you say there was a committee to investigate foreign investment in the US? Maybe they should check out the House of Saud or the Pakistani's or the House of Rothschild or
Honestly, though Hugo Chavez has every reason to be suspicious of the US given the CIAs involvement in the 2002 coup attempt of his country, I doubt that he would be much competition for the professional vote riggers in the US.
I think this is a serious case of misdirection.
Bush and Cheney, being long-term conservatives (no "neo-" conversion from liberalism) do not meet the definition of neoconservative.
Where were you when the voynix came?
What are we all worried about, these systems are totally tamper proof.... sheesh
"but please do NOT conflate American liberalism with the brand of socialism that Chavez is pandering."
Why not? There's a disturbing number of mainstream American liberal leaders from Michael Moore to Cindy Sheehan to Danny Glover who proudly proclaim Chavez' system as a great example of what the US should be moving to. You can't deny this element among liberals who go much farther than wanting "respect free markets and only wish to implement certain safety nets" and instead side with Chavez and the fascist approach which is "concerned with overthrowing the market and having heavy government involvement in the economy to the point that the government basically runs it".
Or do you merely count the numbers of liberals who are pro-Chavez as not really being liberals at all?
"Aside from economics, liberals fight tooth and nail to preserve civil liberties and natural rights"
Aside from the Chavez issue, there are examples where this is not true at all. Race is the most clear example, as the majority in the US liberal favor policies that discriminate against people based on the color of their skin. This advocacy of racism is rather mainstream. The US liberals are also strongly likely to favor forcing people to contribute to political causes and campaigns against their will: that is not friendly to "civil liberties", is it?
Where were you when the voynix came?
Chavez will get what's coming to him sooner or later.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Disclaimer : I am Venezuelan.
The matter is that he (the president of Venezuela)
has relations with a company that supplied the
voting machines for the venezuelan elections.
Would you allow a voting machine supplier to have
relations to either Bush or Clinton?
The comments I have read so far, show that for the
people of the USA,(I refuse to call them americans)
the whole universe revolves around their asses.
Their willing ignorance about everything outside
their borders could be called "British".
Ehmm... do you live in Venezuela? are you Venezuelan? or you just believe anything you read?
No, "propaganda" meaning
propaganda n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
Obviously some of the revolution was televised. But you must have missed the part where the protesters getting sniped wasn't aired on the private TV stations.
If you're not even going to cite any sources to back up the rest of your opinions, it's not really worth discussing with you. For instance, how is Chavez, who was democratically elected, a dictator? What rights did Venezuelans lose?
You have an opportunity to inform me. So go ahead. If you're not just spouting off trivial opinions it should be easy.
"No, "propaganda" meaning...."
....a description which applies to just about anything anyone says (as per your definition). Use of the word in a pejorative fashion is a perfect example of trolling.
"For instance, how is Chavez, who was democratically elected, a dictator?"
There's no contradiction between them. One can gain power in a democratic election, and then work to dismantle democracy and assume more and more personal power. Speaking of trolling, why are you bothering to troll for a dictator?
"What rights did Venezuelans lose?"
Article 147 (the censorship law): "Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light.". That's just for starters.
Where were you when the voynix came?
I assume you got Article 147 from this article, which was also repeated at several other sites around the web.
In the context of that article, and the documentary about Venezuela we have been discussing, it is much easier to understand the crack down on journalists, especially those financed by foreign parties. They provoked the coup that usurped his Presidency after all. Though it does seem rather broad. I'll have to look into whether there are any other rights that have been limited by Chavez. But I still think that most of what we hear about him is because of his intent to reclaim their oil from the private ruling class to help feed the poor in his country, and that ~15% of our oil comes from Venezuela. He is also hostile to NAFTA and similar trade agreements.
"In the context of that article, and the documentary about Venezuela we have been discussing, it is much easier to understand the crack down on journalists, especially those financed by foreign parties"
I hope you are not using this as an excuse to justify a law that criminalizes (with a harsh jail term) mere criticism of "The Leader"? Sedition laws are one thing, laws that would land Venezuela's equivalent to the Dixie Chicks or Michael Moore in prison if enforced are another.
"But I still think that most of what we hear about him is because of his intent to reclaim their oil from the private ruling class to help feed the poor in his country"
He's transferring it from one private ruling class to his own private control. The "doing it to help the poor" is a tired-old effective trick of words only: it is like someone in the GOP doing something outrageous in order to "Stop the terrorists" or "Protect the children" or "Protect family values". Like there are many on the Right who get all dreamy and smiley when these phrases are heard, there are also too many on the Left who drop any idea of critical thinking if someone says a policy is "to help the poor." Personal control and power is the only game there. I'd love it if he truly "nationalized" the oil industry and gave everyone equal shares in it (decentralizing). However, what he is doing is just another power grab and is part a trend of increasing autocratic central control.
"He is also hostile to NAFTA and similar trade agreements."
I think you might have intended to mention FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas). This is his main opposition. NAFTA does not really affect Venezuela, nor will it. That does not stop him from opposing it, but the big issue in South America is FTAA, not NAFTA. No, this is not really an argument point.
Where were you when the voynix came?
It is a fact that Venezuela's wealth distibution has historically been very unequal. Provided you can do some research and interpret statistical figures, there's no need be Venezuelan to know that. My opinion was solely based on that.
Res publica non dominetur
If you call seeing a documentary and reading a couple articles on the net "the information from both sides"...you are quite wrong. Try being born there, try living there... try seeing what actually is happening before you make such statements. So anyone against Chavez is a rich corrupt type that are ruining other nations...? Stop generalizing and get a real clue about what is going on. One word: oppression.
"It is a fact that Venezuela's wealth distibution has historically been very unequal."
And if Chavez gets his way (and rebuilds Venezuela on the Cuban model), things will end up even more unequal. He's be worth consideration if he actually decentralized the central government power, but instead he is following the fascist/socialist model involving autocratic central control.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Hahahaha Carmona left no checks and balances? Excuse me checks and balances have NEVER truely existed in Venezuela. Seriously since when did quoting wikipedia stand as a real source? Either way Chavez is now in full control of the N.Assembly...I'd call that being pretty dictatorial already.
Uh excuse me I lived in Venezuela at the time and I saw both private and public TV stations...I'd say it was more like the other way around because the protesters getting sniped were the people protesting AGAINST Chavez... why would the public TV show their opponents getting shot? They'd try to hide it in any case.
Ok. I ask if you are a Venezuelan because I AM Venezuelan. Here, there are three kind of people: extremist "chavists", extremist "escualidos" (opposition) and "ni-ni" (neutrals). It doesn't matters how poor or rich you are, all around the spectrum you find those three kinds. In the poorest (largest) part of the poblation, Chavez historically has a very strong presence. But it's also true that the "being rich is bad" speech while wearing a Rolex and the ministers driving BMW's is making many people angry. A lot of poor people here doesn't buy anymore the president tales, and is turning angry to demand the solutions to the very same problems they had when Chavez got the power. On the Mid class, things are more complicated, as there are many prepared, well educated people (like one of my parents) that firmly believes in the Chavez project, they think that the 02' coup was a set up, a trap prepared by the Imperialism to end the Chavez government. He really thinks that the "Puente Llaguno" shooting was in self defense... even as I was there, on the other side of the bullets, and I wasn't carrying any weapon, nor any of the people that were right next to me on that street, that day. I saw people falling next to me, and no one on my side were shooting. On the upper class (the so-called "oligarchy"), almost everyone want Chavez out, because is bad for business... at least for the business of those that are against him. Saying that the Chavez government is falling apart is a lie, like saying that he have 50% or more in the polls.
I ask if you are a Venezuelan because only a Venezuelan "Chavist" or "Escualido" (or a misinformed foreigner) can be that extremist, completely ignoring the fact that the truth is ALWAYS in the middle, that there are no black or whites, only shades of gray.
I'm going to vote against Chavez this December, not because his contrincant is better, but because he is not as bad as Chavez. Sad, isn't it?
Learn the "real" truth: The US and Venezuela are both third World countries.
From our European perspective. And don't jump to conclusions I been to many states within the US, but I can compare by myself!
Your history books and your government propaganda as told you a big lie: "The US is a superpower" right? We Europe can kick your ass anytime we want. We even have the means to totally wipe out your continent. Search and learn!
Not to mention some very strange patterns in the exit-poll discrepancies back in 2004.
You know what I love? Continually hearing from Republican sock-puppets that polls are so stilly and stupid in advance of an election. Call me paranoid, but I keep wondering what you guys are planning on pulling next time, if you're so hyped up on convincing us that polls are wrong-wrong-wrong.
It certainly looks like, for example, control of the House is a done deal. If there's a sudden upswelling of Republican support on election day and only on election day, yes indeed, you will have people such as myself speculating about whether the United States can ever be nudged back in the direction of Democracy.
"Noam Chomsky just recently was talking about the differences between...."
He's got no authority outside of his actual field of lingustics. Otherwise, his essays and books are fiction that those who lack critical thinking believe are factual. Sort of like George Lucas and his "Star Wars". I see your definition of "fair" election means "one where my guys LOST."
Where were you when the voynix came?
Such as? Until you qualify that, your "dictator" label is utterly outrageous. He won democratically, what's your problem?
Fine then. Care to backup that oppression with some proof? I've yet to see it. During the coup, that was oppression. The media were told not to show any Chavez supporters. There were police firing at demonstrators.
Ok, consider yourself thumped upside the head with a cluestick. Your comment smells like flamebait, and I'll bite anyway, but I'm not wasting karma on it.
"cracker" as in "macicious hacker" -- which makes perfect sense in context
is not the same as
"cracker" as in "whitey must die" -- which makes no sense at all in context
Kee-rist. There's vote-theft conspiracies right in front of your eyes every which way you could look, and you go off on some hare-brained looking-for-racism tangent. If you don't have anything constructive and on-topic, keep it to yourself.