Whoa, whoa whoa. I don't think it's fair to compare Ahmadinajad to Hitler.

Hitler was a much stronger orator than Ahmadinajad.

Yes! People fail to remember that Hitler was -very- convincing in speech. His gift, in fact, was largely that, he could rouse a people to action, with just the right words, delivered just the right way... Ahmadinajad is just a loose cannon...

Also, I'm pretty sure Ahmadinajad had as much dislike for Chavez as any other "infidel" nation.

Another one bites the dust.... aaaaaand another one gone and another one gone....another one bites the dust! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGn9-CrKowY

Huh. I had to look him up on Wikipedia. Between fixing Venezuela's economy, giving them universal healthcare and introducing a lot of democratic reforms, the only major issues I'm seeing is the shit he pulled with OPEC, the Jew-bashing, the dictatorship and pro-Ahmadinejad stuff.

"Democratic reforms" like what? Changing their constitution so that he [could] run for office indefinately, or rule by decree? Consolidating more power away from the Legislative & Judicial branches to himself? If that's your idea of Democracy, I'd rather have F-r-e-e-d-o-m!

Where are you getting that? I'm reading he ran for office 4 times and won each time fair and square.

Of course the more I read into him the more he looks like Fidel Castro. Starts out being a good guy but sells out and starts power-tripping and creating a police state within a few years.

Tell the poor and destitute that you'll give them money, and surprise, they'll follow you to hell and back irregardless of what you are pitching.

I'd also mention this article

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices.....m-8202738.html

Most important bit, making it a lot easier for the poor to vote.

Yup, fair and square, rigged the vote and banned the opposition, those who he didn't jail, exile, or kill.

You seem to have him confused with Saddam Hussein.

Nope. He did a lot of nasty shit and almost got into a war with Columbia when it was discovered he was funding the rebels in Columbia.

Then there are ALL the businesses he nationalized.

Typical wikipedia, none of that was true. He was a tyrant. The fact that he took 2 BILLION dollars out of the country and put it in his own pockets makes it very clear as to just what kind of a man he was.
A very evil one.

The "typical Wikipedia, never accurate" comment has long been debunked. They're actually about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

I'm tired of disputing the "tyrant" charge because again, I see he did some shady police-state shit when some political threat came up, real or imagined.

The stealing $2 billion thing you'll have to link a source for, because it's not coming up in my search. All I'm asking is for people to look at the guy as a whole, because his party managed a lot of positive changes as well (the aforementioned healthcare, voting reforms making it easier for the poor to vote, cheaper and wider food availability (which to the critics' credit it appears he did price-fixing to accomplish), etc.). All I'm seeing is the usual "LOL he was as bad as Hitler and Stalin, burn in Hell!" from people who probably barely heard of the guy outside of occasional Fox News blurbs.

No, the wikipedia has not been 'debunked' in fact it has been proven to often be true when it comes to entries on politics and political figures.

Hard to find? Can you use google?

http://www.inquisitr.com/558917/hug.....uela-dictator/
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/.....ions.html?_r=0

https://www.google.com/search?q=hug.....amp;hs=mVQ&;rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=hugo+chavez+2+billion+dollars&oq=hugo+chavez+2+billion+dollars&gs_l=serp.3...67309.69096.0.69318.8.8.0.0.0.0.257.1296.0j7j1.8.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.psy-ab.txvAivmc_lM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.aWM&fp=d9da6cbfa07b193f&biw=1144&bih=897

Funny you should say that given the article I linked actually cited their sources and I can't say the same for Conservapedia or Fox News.

But hey obviously you want to talk down to me and start a fight. Typical.

Wikipedia is only useful in matters that are in no way subjective. (eg scientific and physical properties of a material / gas / liquid... etc)

There is -never- a shortage of subjective commentary upon which one can reference. Its not in what is referenced per-say, its in what -isn't-. List all the facts for one point of view, and keep it straight facts, and yes, you can find all the references you want for a wiki page, or anything else you desire. It still does not change the fact that its not the -whole- truth.

Cherry-picking your facts, that is as old as bias itself.

Hope you like his succesor, the ones who speaks with birdies, uses "faggot" liberally and is going to build a lot of schools for "retard children"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v.....ps033e8752.gif

Didn't know last week was a whole new time period.

No but Hugo died over a month ago. I'm not discussing him, I'm sick to death of talking about this shit, especially with asshole conservatives like you who can't even open a conversation without insulting the person you're talking to. That's not debate, that's Internet Arguing, which only makes you look like a fucking tool.

Not the most horrible as tin-pot dictators go, I wouldn't wish death on him but the world hasn't suffered a terrible loss at his leaving it. To borrow from PotC, "nothing I'd lament being rid of."

So Hugo Chavez kicked the bucket, eh?

What a shame...

may he burn in Hell

So... RIP... Rest In Peace or Rot In Perdition?

I was thinking Ripped Into Particles