Sure thing(sorry this took me so long to get back to you, it's the middle of finals).

On inflation:

And:

On crime:

And:

The claim that inequality's risen is directly from Venezuela's central bank:

None of that is particularly controversial(even Chavez's most die hard supporters tend to acknowledge crime's gotten out of control), so I'm guessing the contradictory stats your referring to are on the issue of poverty, which does seem to have fallen in the past 2 years. Poverty rose during most of Chavez's first term, and the government finally registered it starting to fall around mid-2005, which was the exact same time they changed their methodology for measuring poverty to reflect access to basic food and social services, in addition to income, which would obviously help to push it downward.(6) There are competing claims as to whether per capita incomes have slightly risen, or slightly fallen(the numbers suggest it's negligible either way). It seems to be a given that purchasing power parity has definitely gone up due the subsidized markets, and various stipends paid out, but it's largely been negated by inflation.

Honestly, it was probably going too far to say that poverty's barely budged, but I do stand by the argument that Chavez's economic policies have brought, at best, very modest gains, and incurred hugely disproportionate costs.

See above.

They very well may be, but in and of itself, that tells us nothing. You'd have to compare it to the record in Venezuela before Chavez and see if there's a particulary dramatic difference in the rates, as well as compare it to countries that are at a similar state of development. For instance, you mentioned infant mortality, and yes, infant mortality has gone down during Chavez's term in office, but it's shown more dramatic reductions in Brazil and Mexico(both of which maintained fairly orthodox macroeconomic policies), and besides, Venezuela's infant mortality rate has been going down for the past 40 years. When you consider that, it doesn't look like anything more than a middle income country muddling along. Interestingly, the instance of stunting and malnutrition of infants in Venezuela has actually gone up slightly during Chavez's term in office, largely due to the fact that public hospitals have deteriorated.(7)

Given a huge increase in public spending and high oil prices, there's no way the Venezuelan economy couldn't be growing rapidly. That doesn't change the fact that Chavez's model is an economic dead end.

(1)Inflation worries hit Venezuela - CNN.com
(2)Venezuela announces plan to combat soaring inflation - International Herald Tribune
(3)As Crime Soars for Venezuela, Chávez Coasts - New York Times
(4)The Economist, April 20th, 2006
(5)The Economist, December 6th, 2007
(6)Michael Shifter, 'In Search of Hugo Chavez'; Foreign Affairs, May/June 2006
(7)The Economist, December 6th, 2007

Well, they voted No on the constitutional reform.

Maybe the bad articles outdid the "good one's" you listed there...

Anyone heard the reports of Chavez' $800K suitcase of cash intended for Argentina's pres-elect campaign? They are both mighty shrill about it. Where there's smoke...

__________________

Don't startle him, Joe - it's almost full!

Yup. It was in the Washington Times earlier this week. It looks like ol' Hugo was paying to influence Argentian elections, giving $800K to her campaign which is well outside the legal limit in Argentina's election laws. Yes, Hugo loves that democratic process of fair elections.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

mmmm just watched it on youtube with my basic understanding of Spanish.
To be honest IMO both were coming across as rude. Chavez obviouly looked the worse but I think the king would have be more dignified if he had told chavez in a politer manner to be quiet or to think before he speaks . If anything I think that would have made Chavez look even more foolish for his facist comment. Shut up is quite an ignorant thing to say no matter which way its put. Tit for tat really...
Neither acted in a professional manner. But hey everyone loves a bust-up!

__________________
British teenagers score the highest in Europe - when it comes to teen pregnancy tests.

agreed that the King might have done well to react wih a little more class to classless behavior by Chavez, but then again I doubt Juan Carlos is accustomed to foreigners denigrating his country and its leadership to his face. And, don't forget he is a Spaniard, they can get pretty hot-headed LOL

__________________

Don't startle him, Joe - it's almost full!

Nothing warms my heart more than seeing a King tell a Commie to shut up - Except a King skewering a Commie in a sword-duel. Hint, hint, Juan Carlos...

I don't know, Chavez is an old paratrooper and could probably hand Juan Carlos' ass to him in a fight. Still I'll bet he hasn't been told to shut up y anyone in a decade, he was wayyy overdue

__________________

Don't startle him, Joe - it's almost full!

My bet would be that Juan Carlos is a better fencer than Chavez. In a sword duel, fought in the old manner, with rules, my money's on the King. In a thug's brawl with mud-flinging and broken bottles, of course Scumvez would prbly pull ahead. But I did stipulate that the contest would be within the framework of a sword duel.

[quote=Si modo;1104435]I wonder if anyone here still thinks of Chavez as some kind of hero of the people? [quote]

In respect to Chaves and his thoughts related to Spain one must IMO also go back in history to the following:

"The four voyages of Columbus (between 1492 and 1504) served to open the door to European exploration, colonization and exploitation of the New World, although Columbus himself never set foot in North America. By the time the English began active colonization, the Spanish had already explored large portions of North America, especially in the South and Southwest. The Spanish explorers encountered three major civilizations in the New World: the Incas in present-day Peru and the Mayans and Aztecs in Mexico and Central America. The conquistadors were truly amazed by what they found — immense wealth in gold and silver, complex cities rivaling or surpassing those in Europe, and remarkable artistic and scientific achievements.

Spanish conquest in the New World was driven by the three 'G's—gold, glory, and gospel. In his drive to gather riches, Columbus (and later conquistadors) enslaved and decimated the local populations. The numbers of these Native Americans plummeted, in part because of war against the colonial forces, but also because of the introduction of diseases to which the natives had no natural immunity. The natives contracted malaria, smallpox and measles from the Europeans, but passed on syphilis to the invaders in a morbid exchange.

In 1494, shortly after Columbus’ first voyage, the pope divided the newly discovered lands between Spain and Portugal — both Catholic nations, but fierce rivals. The line of demarcation crossed through the hump of South America. Spain was to have the lands to the west and Portugal those to the east (accounting for the use of the Portuguese language in Brazil today). The most profitable Spanish activities in the New World occurred in the southern portions, while less rewarding ventures took place in northern areas".End quotes.

Chaves may be a hot head and at times uncouth but their IS an underlying relationships to be considered related to Spain and its subjugation of the people in the Americas.

Scumvez?

Wow that's about as witty as stand-up comedy in the lobotomy ward.

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Matthew 5:9

Were I attempting wit this comment might have some point or purpose. Am I to understand you have taken offense because you approve of the adorable little dictator?

I think he was just pointing out that your "witticism" was on par as "Dummycrat" or "Republicant". Just pointing out your childish behavior which is different from showing support of Chavez.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Actually, it's not on par, it's worse.

At least "Dummy" or "Cant" have some sound similarity to "Demo" and "Can" whereas Scum is nowhere near whatsoever in sound to Chav.

Just sayin'.

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Matthew 5:9

Chavez certainly isn't any worse than our own adorable little dictatorial duet, Bush/Cheney, ya think?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson