Is this the best you can do to make Chavez look bad? George Washington led a successful coup d'état in the 1770s, and so what? He was hardly more successful than Chavez, but that doesn't tell you much about his ethics, morality, or integrity. For you to think you have an accurate picture of Chavez or anyone else for that matter based on a handful of oversimplified facts and a lot of loose connections to other people is sheer lunacy. I'm getting tired of it, and would ask that you provide better evidence for your delusions, but I know you won't, because if you had better evidence, you would have already presented it.

Most of what I know about Chavez comes from the Big Propaganda Machine, i.e. the mainstream press. That means I don't really know much about Chavez, because all I have for information is solid propaganda. What I get from you is more parroting of this same propaganda, which tells me you don't really know much about Chavez either.

One thing I notice is that the mainstream media goes out of its way to villainize Chavez, and you do the very same thing. I've learned that the mainstream media cannot be trusted. I'm learning the same thing about Uncle Zook.

The Great Communicator is a title accorded many a common soul ascended low on the mountain to preach enlightenment and heavy wisdom alike to an audience hanging on the every word. Fancy words, difficult words, street terms, onomatopoeia ... mixed together in a fine blend of persuasion.

Lesser known is the titular loft hidden in the shadows: the Great Prevaricator. It is a rare animal
that can mess with the facts and the logic of arguments so convincingly - at times, brilliantly - that the targeted audience soon forgets that nothing anchored in actual meaning is being offered, and that the warm fuzzy feeling on the target audience's exposed forehead is the result of heated windbag air traveling from the source to feed into target surface flows.

Fact: my previous post that excoriates the Bahamian banana split and suckling titwit on the wet nipple, e.g. for his lack of knowledge of so-called democracy in latin America, as revealed by the following:



... has next to nothing to do with Chavez and very much and everything to do with the apparition of democracy in Venezuela (and in latin America). Coup d'etats and military rule are part in parcel of the divide and conquer bankster show put on the latin American stage (and other regional stages) ... with military anthems, regalia, and motley marionettes on a string whenwhere the situation warrants ... and with new eyeshadow, fresh powder, and democratic makeup whenwhere the situation warrants a change in form.

In short, I exposed Mr. BananaBoy's simp-spherified knowledgebase. True to form, you, Chico, the Socratic-deconstruction wannabe sage ... the unwitting (or witting??) gatekeeper on the rant and rage ... and the Great Prevaricator of our age ... have exposed your ignorance yet again.

Pax Postcard From India

It's good that we have a record of all this for everyone to examine and decide for themselves who is prevaricating, rather than having to take your word for it.

Everything I said with respect to Chavez in my prior post also applies to the apparition of democracy in Venezuela, coup d'etats, and military rule. Most of what we know about these things comes to us via state-sponsored propaganda. You think you know what you are talking about, but you do not. It's the same for me, but the difference is that I know it.

Truth, lies, propaganda, disinfo? The video looks real enough (note that YouTube has already censored it). Does Assange shield Israel, much like Alex Jones has been accused of doing? Would you shield Israel, if you knew they were murdering with impunity, and you might be next if you don't?

This is incredibly ugly.

Again you've avoided answering a perfectly legitimate question with your usual mind numbing BS!

"In short, I exposed Mr. BananaBoy's simp-spherified knowledgebase." Claims like these Mr. UncleZook are normally accompanied by evidence, where is this evidence?

Here's a very interesting followup about OSCE monitoring of elections in the USA that I talked about in this post.

I have to agree: kick the United Nations out, kick the OSCE out, and while we're at it, kick the criminal cartel that runs our government out! Congressman Connie Mack can stay, because he knows what most informed Americans know -- what's good for us all.

I also agree, but I think the point that everyone seems to have missed here is that Venezuela allows the monitoring of their elections while the USA does not!

What part of this is challenging you the most to explain Mr. UncleZook?

My point is that deciding whether OSCE monitoring is good or bad depends on many things. Having a neutral party monitor for voting irregularities is usually a good thing, but the OSCE may not be a neutral party, given its close cooperation with the United Nations, and given that the UN is mostly a front for the ruling sociopaths' agenda of one world government and the demise of national sovereignty. If the UN, through the OSCE, can get to the point where they monitor all elections and can also assume the power of counting the votes, they can rig the elections to their benefit. Infiltration of this kind is one of the main strategies of the ruling sociopaths.

Did miss something, where was it posted that the OSCE monitored Venezuela's elections!

These links might help clear up some of this confusion;

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12074-in ... -democracy

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7336

Good point! It looks like I jumped to a conclusion and assumed the OSCE was doing the monitoring. So who did the monitoring? It appears we can't count the Carter Center, as their own report says, "Because the Center does not have an election observation mission in Venezuela, it will not provide a comprehensive assessment of the quality of the electoral process as a whole." Yet they pretend to do exactly that. Here's how Jimmy Carter put it:


Jimmy Carter is known to have cooperated with the ruling sociopaths, having been one of their puppets on the presidential stage, so I have some reservations about trusting his assessment.