The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

It never ceases to amaze me how whacko people are. I have a hard time feeling sorry that Sean Penn "lost a friend" and that Oliver Stone "mourn(s) a great hero" . I swear I wish we could (I know we can't) change laws that say if you befriend any national leader or country that has deemed themselves an enemy of the US that they would need to move out of the country or be charged a traitor. That goes for goofy people like Rodman as well.

I'm probably opening up a can of worms here, but other than disagreements with his foreign policy, why is Chavez so hated?  Wasn't he democratically elected multiple times?

^^ There was suspicion of ballot-box stuffing or that the elections were a farse because the election was controlled by the corrupt government. 

Yes, I understand that, and while I certainly don't condone election fixing, these are accusations made about our own government on a somewhat regular basis.  Yet, if Bush died and some actor from Canada called him a great man, I don't think there'd be much hubbub.

Perspective, it's truly a bitch... There might not be much hubbub "here" if Bush died and some Canadian glitterati called him a great man, but the hubbub level in countries that really hate the USA would likely be on par with what you're seeing here now.

I think this is the reason he was hated.

Hugo Chávez Frias was not a dictator, a semantic point to which his supporters devoted much argument, but he was most assuredly not a democrat. Having burst onto the Venezuelan political scene in 1992 as the leader of a failed military coup, he would later reposition himself as a champion of the ballot box, though one without much concern for the niceties of democracy. In the early days of Chavismo, despite his golpista background, Chavez commanded support from beyond the barrios, but his popularity waned significantly as he consolidated power by shuttering opposition media, rewriting the constitution, and expanding the supreme court. As his rule become more arbitrary and power centralized, thousands fled into exile. He won elections in conditions that, had they taken place in this country, would likely provoke revolution (and, in 2002, actually did in Venezuela). Chavez took his semi-democratic mandate as license to rule undemocratically and rebuild state institutions, now staffed with loyal supporters.

Chávez presided over a political epoch flush with money and lorded over a society riven by fear, deep political divisions, and ultraviolence. Consider the latest crime statistics from Observatorio Venezolano de la Violencia, which reckons that 2012 saw an astonishing 21,692 murders in the country—in a population of 29 million. Last year, I accompanied a Venezuelan journalist on his morning rounds at Caracas’s only morgue to count the previous night’s murders. As the number of dead ballooned, the Chávez regime simply stopped releasing murder statistics to the media.

All of this could have been predicted, and wasn’t particularly surprising from a president who believed that one must take the side of any enemy of the “empire.” That Zimbabwe’s dictator Robert Mugabe was a “freedom fighter,” or that Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko presided over “a model of a social state.” Saddam Hussein was a “brother,” Bashar al-Assad had the “same political vision” as the Bolivarian revolutionaries in Venezuela. He saw in the madness of Col. Gaddafi an often overlooked “brilliance” (“I ask God to protect the life of our brother Muammar Gaddafi”). The brutal terrorist Carlos the Jackal, who praised the 9/11 attacks from his French jail cell, was “a good friend.” He praised and supported FARC, the terrorist organization operating in neighboring Colombia. The list is endless.

His was a poisonous influence on the region, one rah-rahed by radical fools who desired to see a thumb jammed in America’s eye, while not caring a lick for its effect on ordinary Venezuelans. In his terrific new book (fortuitously timed to publish this week) Comandante: Hugo Chávez's Venezuela, The Guardian’s Rory Carroll summed up the legacy of Chávez’s Venezuela as “a land of power cuts, broken escalators, shortages, queues, insecurity, bureaucracy, unreturned calls, unfilled holes, uncollected garbage.” One could add to that list grinding poverty, massive corruption, censorship, and intimidation.

This was Chávez’s reign and his legacy; extralegal, vindictive, and interested in the short-term gesture rather than the more difficult, long-term solution. From his revolutionary comrades in Cuba, he borrowed the slogan “patria, socialismo o muerte”—fatherland, socialism or death. The fatherland is a shambles, Bolivarian socialism has failed, and Comandante Chávez is dead. May the “revolution” die with him.

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/05/hugo-chavez-dead-at-58-good-riddance.html

I can't work up the energy to care about his death either way (happy or sad). 

I did find Venezuela's policies on gas prices interesting, though.

Same can be said of the 2000 US election. 

"Celebrities" being dumbasses doesn't bother nearly as much as the disturbing percentage of the voting population that gets their "news" from celebrity sound bytes. 

Deemed themselves an enemy of the US? 

While that charge fits with Rodman's visit to North Korea.  And certainly fits George W. Bush's sheparding Osama Bin Ladin's family out of the country right after 9/11.  The US and Venezuela are not enemies.

Gotta agree with Dolphster on that...the human race has way too high of a lemming population these days.