Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chavez says may give US F-16 jets to Cuba, China

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Go ahead buddy, give those A-model F-16s to the cubans and chinese. The Chinese are building a falcon clone and I dare el Presidente to do anything with them. If he did, I'd be smoking a cigar in a Havana nightclub by the end of the week.
    F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

    Comment


    • #32
      We can do whatever we want with these aircraft," Mr. Chávez
      Is it me or is this pajizo sounding more and more like some spoiled little kid who is about to tell you that his dad can beat up your dad?
      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

      Comment


      • #33
        Time for some assasination squads to go hunting for Chavez.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Leader
          " he is an elected head of state"

          That's in question.
          There can be no question that he has been elected by his people.

          In fact, twice!

          While one may not agree with his views, one cannot deny reality.

          The first lesson in psyops or disinformation is that always keep the facts that one wants to convey as near to the truth so as to plant a serious seed of doubt!

          In the event of blatantly being partisan, it merely make even the truth one wants to convey, a lie!



          "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

          I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

          HAKUNA MATATA

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Ray
            There can be no question that he has been elected by his people.
            You are, quite simply, wrong. I can and do question it with good reason.

            Venezuelans, who have been voting 2-to-1 against Chávez in opinion polls, waited in absurdly long lines to cast more meaningful votes on electronic machines. But did the machine really record the vote as registered on the paper ballot?

            According to experts, it is relatively simple to tamper with encryption codes in electronic voting machines. American Enterprise Institute resident scholar John Lott says, "You can easily write a program that tells the voting machine to record something different in its memory than what it prints out on the receipt that is to be dropped in the ballot box."

            To rely on the tally sheets alone, as Messrs. Carter and Gaviria did, is to abdicate the heavy responsibility an observer accepts when overseeing an election. A Venezuelan who is a former U.N. deputy high commissioner of human rights wrote of his suspicions in Wednesday's International Herald Tribune (right beside a pro-Chávez New York Times editorial, by the way). Enrique ter Horst cited as cause for concern the fact that "the papers the new machines produced . . . were not added up and compared with the final numbers these machines produce at the end of the voting process, as the voting-machine manufacturer had suggested."

            An exit poll done by the prominent U.S. polling firm of Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates showed 59% of voters opposed to Chávez and only 41% in favor. (Messrs. Penn and Schoen both worked for Bill Clinton in his 1996 re-election bid.) Raj Kumar, a principal at the polling firm, told me Thursday that the firm has gone back to try to explain the 34-point spread between the PSB poll and the results announced by the government. "While there are certainly biases that can impact any exit poll, we do not see any factor that could account for such a significant difference," he said.

            At 3:00 on Monday morning two members of the National Electoral Council who are politically opposed to Chávez announced that they had been shut out of the audit process and warned the public that the established protocol had been violated. Some 50 minutes later pro-Chávez Electoral Council member Francisco Carrasquero emerged alone to proclaim Chávez the winner.

            There is much to question. Mr. ter Horst cites one example: "In the town of Valle de la Pascua, where papers were counted at the initiative of those manning the voting center, the "yes" vote had been cut by more than 75%, and the entire voting material was seized by the national guard shortly after the difference was established." "Yes" was a vote to remove Chávez.

            There is also a reasonable accusation that the number of "yes" votes at some polling stations was "capped" by software tampering. The charge is supported by the discovery, in some locations, of two or three machines recording the exact same number of "yes" votes and substantially more "no" votes. The opposition is claiming that it has proof that this occurred at 500 polling stations. Again, if Mr. Carter and the OAS observers had demanded an open auditing process instead of blindly endorsing government claims, cheating would have been uncovered. But Chávez refused open audits and the observers went along with him.
            http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110005509

            The Hotline was evidently having a little fun twitting a polling firm. But was the result as clear as they—and official election observer Jimmy Carter—thought? There is good reason to believe it was not. In fact, it's something of a scandal that American news media have been taking the official vote count in Venezuela at face value. There is very good reason to believe that the exit poll had the result right, and that Chavez's election officials—and Carter and the American media—got it wrong.

            Let us look at the reasons.

            Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has been running an authoritarian regime. By various means he has taken control of the legislature, the courts, the armed services and the police. His thugs have been intimidating and even killing the regime's opponents. The literature on this is voluminous, but consider these reports from the Wall Street Journal: www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005494 and www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110005478. Chavez is an ally of Cuba's Fidel Castro and an enemy of the United States, and he has shown no commitment to democratic principles. He sought to block the referendum by extralegal means and, having failed at that, resorted to intimidation to win it. There is no reason to believe that he would stop at election fraud.

            One weapon against such fraud is the exit poll. As Doug Schoen of Penn Schoen points out, his firm has conducted exit polls in Mexico and, just a few days ago, in the Dominican Republic, which produced results very close to the election results. His partner Mark Penn points out that the firm conducted two previous exit polls in Venezuela, both of which were on the mark. Warren Mitofsky's firm, Mitofsky International, has produced exit polls with similar results in Mexico and Russia. Mitofsky recalls that in 1994, Mexican President Carlos Salinas, seeking credibility with foreign investors for that year's Mexican elections, asked him for advice on what to do. Allow independent exit polls, Mitofsky advised, sponsored by the media, and allow the results to be announced soon after the voting. Mitofsky's exit poll results, announced soon after the polls closed, did in fact come close to the official results, as did another Mitofsky poll in 2000. More important, they provided independent confirmation of the fairness of the count.

            Interestingly, Mitofsky points out that Jimmy Carter has opposed independent exit polls in countries where he has observed elections. In 1994, Mitofsky says, he persuaded South Africa's election authorities from allowing exit polls. As a result, there was considerable confusion and skepticism in the course of the five-day election process. Nevertheless, the chief South African election official tried to persuade Mexico not to allow exit polls. Salinas, fortunately, showed better judgment.

            In Venezuela, Schoen's firm was hired by businessmen who were almost surely opponents of Chavez. The Chavez regime intimidated local interviewing firms, who refused to provide interviewers for Penn Schoen at the polls. As a result, the firm trained volunteers. Critics of the firm might argue that these volunteers, undoubtedly mostly anti-Chavez, may have tried to present a false result.

            But that would in fact be difficult to do. Mitofsky points out that in countries emerging from autocracy into democracy, about 90 percent of voters approached by exit pollsters agree to participate. That is almost double the rate in the United States. Moreover, exit pollers work in teams; there would have to be massive collusion for them to produce fraudulent results. The Penn Schoen exit poll was conducted at about 200 polling places and produced more than 20,000 responses. Changing those results from something like 42-58 (the Chavez announced figure) to 59-41 would be quite a feat. The firm employed supervisors to make sure the polling was done right. And its results by precinct can be checked against the official results reported for that precinct.

            In contrast, it would be far easier, given the touch-screen voting method and central tabulation used in Venezuela, for the central counting center to falsify the results. All you would have to do is program the computer to count every sixth "yes" vote as a "no." That would transform a 59-41 vote to 42-58. And the results would still show pro-Chavez areas voting for him and anti-Chavez areas going the other way—just by different margins.

            Jimmy Carter did not remain in Venezuela long after the polling and, after a superficial look at the central counting center, pronounced the election fair and the result accurate. He could not have determined whether the counting computer was misprogrammed. Chavez had every motive for cheating: polls before the election mostly showed him under 50 percent, and he should have reasonably concluded that those not for him were against. Adjusting the count was one sure way to win.

            By way of comparison, Penn Schoen has no motive whatever for cheating. It is a reputable American firm in a competitive business. Over more than 20 years it has worked for successful American politicians like Bill Clinton in 1996, Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2001, Michael Bloomberg in 2001 and many others. I have had experience, as a political consultant and a political writer, dealing with Penn Schoen during that whole time, and have found the firm to be reliable and fully observant of professional standards. They are high on my list of Democratic, Republican and independent polling firms whose numbers I trust and whose professional integrity I respect. Penn and Schoen are not likely to squander a hard-won good reputation to please a client in a foreign country where they are not likely to work again any time soon.

            Schoen has little doubt what happened. "I think it was a massive fraud," he told me. "Our internal sourcing tells us that there was fraud in the central commission." This was not the first time he has encountered such things. "The same thing happened in Serbia in 1992, by [President Slobodan] Milosevic. He did it again in the local elections in 1996. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people died. Had he been caught [in this fraud] in 1992, this would not have happened."

            In Venezuela this year, as in Serbia in 1992, I think it's overwhelmingly likely that the exit poll was far closer than the officially announced results to the way people actually voted.

            Unhappily, the prospects for Venezuela are not much better than they were for Serbia. The Chavez regime has been given a patina of respectability by Jimmy Carter and the New York Times editorial page that it almost certainly does not deserve. Warren Mitofsky was not involved in Venezuela, and is a competitor of Penn Schoen, but he draws similar conclusions to Schoen's. "I find it extraordinary that, with only one exit poll and no quick count, people are willing to take one side's word," he told me. "This doesn't smell good."

            Independent exit polls are one of the guarantors of democracy in countries emerging from or under authoritarian rule. Political junkies may think it amusing that there is such a wide discrepancy between an exit poll and official results. But for people in Venezuela and perhaps in other parts of Latin America it's more likely to be tragic.
            http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion.../mb_040820.htm

            Is this proof that Hugo boy is a fraud? Not quite, however it does show that you need to be a little more careful next time in proclaiming what can and cannot be questioned.

            Comment


            • #36
              The largest election in the world is in India.

              We have electronic voting machines.



              "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

              I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

              HAKUNA MATATA

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Ray
                The largest election in the world is in India.

                We have electronic voting machines.

                So what? I have legitimate cause to question the election. When you said that no one could question it, you were wrong.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Time for some assasination squads to go hunting for Chavez.
                  Stop watching movies... that's not even how we get rid of people...

                  I don't think we should threaten him either. Just end the prick. Then put out a statement taking responsibility and defending it.
                  Then what help the military put up a dictorship? Wack a nations elected leader and see how the next elected leader acts like. We will just have proved Chavez and his large number of supporters in the region right and he will be a matyr in the region.
                  To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    "elected leader "

                    I DON'T AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I direct you to the post #35.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Still that doesn't provide a rational to make him into a martyr... those articles really don't prove much... like listening to Dems after 2000...

                      And please respond to the rest of the post...
                      To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Chavez is an elected leader, even though he rigged the elections.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by troung
                          Still that doesn't provide a rational to make him into a martyr...
                          If we killed OBL, he'd be a "martyr" too. I'd rather have a dead martyr rather then a free criminal.

                          those articles really don't prove much... like listening to Dems after 2000...
                          That's just wrong. US elections are nothing like Venezuelan elections and Bush and the Republican party are nothing like Chavez and his gang of thugs. And if you have a smart ass comment about that you can save it.

                          And please respond to the rest of the post...
                          Then what help the military put up a dictorship?
                          Syntax? The military would likely be better then Chavez. A free election would be even better.

                          Wack a nations elected leader and see how the next elected leader acts like.
                          He'll have nothing to worry about since Chavez likely wasn't elected.

                          We will just have proved Chavez and his large number of supporters in the region right and he will be a matyr in the region.
                          The Martyr argument is unpersuasive. If Chavez deserves to die and we kill him that hardly validates anti-Americanism.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            The point is he is not OBL. He pulls our tail to get us to respond to him to prove his "points" and play to an audience. Killing him because he think that he cheated in his last election is a joke. A real joke. I'm sorry. He might have cheated he might not have. Using exit polling as proof is too thin to kill an "elected leader". So killing him with what he has done thus far proves him and people like him right. And then of course we have how and the tool would more or less be the local army which would probably put the nation into a dictorship. Armies running nations doesn't work, as has been shown in the region and the world (Burma for example).

                            Then agian this all comes down to personal ideals... so we would/will likely run in circles...
                            To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by troung
                              The point is he is not OBL. He pulls our tail to get us to respond to him to prove his "points" and play to an audience. Killing him because he think that he cheated in his last election is a joke. A real joke. I'm sorry. He might have cheated he might not have. Using exit polling as proof is too thin to kill an "elected leader". So killing him with what he has done thus far proves him and people like him right. And then of course we have how and the tool would more or less be the local army which would probably put the nation into a dictorship. Armies running nations doesn't work, as has been shown in the region and the world (Burma for example).

                              Then agian this all comes down to personal ideals... so we would/will likely run in circles...
                              It's clear if you read my posts that I'm not for killing Castro Jr. because we "think that he cheated in his last election."

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Leader
                                It's clear if you read my posts that I'm not for killing Castro Jr. because we "think that he cheated in his last election."
                                I read your posts and I generally agree, the focus has shifted away from the fact that a leader (unelected?, possibly) is threatening to turn over U.S. tech to nations it does not want to possess said tech!

                                Troung, if you think its ok to turn over tech to the Chinese or Cubans I hope you can live with the reprocussions.....
                                Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

                                -- Larry Elder

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X