A few hours ago I saw Chavez on the BBC. He wanted OPEC to recognize Venezuela as the world's lagest source of oil. According to him Venezuela has enough oil for a hundred years supply, which sounds great, if one can figure out exactly what he really means! It would appear he's including the tarsand into this figure. He also said the US was planning to invade his country, but this would be a very bad idea, as nobody would get any oil, not us, not you, and the resulting war would last a very long time. Let's just hope it doesn't really come to that.

BOP

Yes the Nazi Party had the most seats but did not get a popular majority of the votes (50%+1 vote). This inspite of massive intimidation by the Nazi, Nationalists and the Communist and Socialists. Lots of people were cracking heads back then. The nearest party in popular vote had 18%.

However the Nationalist Party (DNVP) joined in a coalition with the NSDAP which was well over 50%. The Catholic Party later joined to give Hitler the 2/3rds vote he needed to become a dictator "legally."

By this point in time in Germany the center parties were reeling, and the Socialist (SPD) and Commies were the strongest on the hard left, and in a minority.

Link at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election,_1933

Then Hitler, like Chavez, essentially usurped full power and ended the Weimar Republic. Chavez is an embryonic dictator, albeit one who is popular with the poor of that nation (usually with darker skins) than the middle and upper classes.

What else is interesting is that Germany was the most educated country per capita in 1933 when it freely elected Hitler to lead the nation.

And gee, I do wonder what could possibly cause anyone to have a beef with Hugo Chavez...

Let's see. Could it be because his "Bolivarian Circles" have violently assaulted his opposition? Because his police have been known to randomly fire into demonstrations against him? Because he is chummy with Castro? Because his bureaucracy uses the Tascon list (the original petition list for recall against him) to blacklist the entire opposition, down to opposition voters? Because he has switched his elections to using paperless computerized balloting machines, with which he not only has made recounts and vote auditing impossible, but which have destroyed the right to a secret ballot? Because he will form warm relations with anyone who opposes the US, even Mugabe? Because he has defunded hospitals in regions that  voted against him, causing the health systems there to deteriorate? Because he has tried to foment war in several neighboring countries? Because he shelters FARC members from justice?

Opposing Bush is one thing. But I am amazed at the willingness of people on the left to latch on to anyone who opposes him, no matter how vile he might be.

prole,

This is the second time that you've responded to me on the subject of Mr. Chavez. I suggest the third time you add something of substance. Both times you have attacked me and not the argument. This is an unacceptable form of debate. My axe to grind with Mr. Chavez is that I don't believe he is what he appears to some people. I think I've made that abundantly clear with the material I've presented on the subject. You are welcome to your opinion of Mr.Chavez, I understand that you don't agree with mine, nor feel I have the right to express it. If you have something to say in defence of Mr. Chavez, say it. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you left me alone.

so Chavez term is up on Jul 30th this year? Whens the election? Who will replace him? I was unaware of that - thanks

I believe this is an editorial I cited. Your comment is also an editorial. Maybe you think you sing better than he does?

As a piece of journalism it is almost a complete failure.

OK. Fair enough. But let's engage in an exercise now. Let's take a look at the word 'almost.' Can you point out the part where it wasn't a failure? Certainly you read it carefully enough to notice. Your next sentence highlights the importance of details.