Venezuela TV station to shut at midnight

[laureloak]

CARACAS, Venezuela - Television personalities embraced, wept and broke into chants of "freedom!" before the cameras Sunday as Venezuela's most widely watched channel prepared to go off the air at midnight under a decision by President Hugo Chavez that opponents called an assault on free speech.
-snip



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070527/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_chavez_vs_tv;_ylt=ArH5f3NM0gz55HhJimHA43zMWM0F

[Selatius]

1. They can go to satellite and cable broadcasts but not public airwaves

If you advocate the violent overthrow of a democratically government, you lose your broadcast license.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

4. yep.

[RB TexLa]

71. Sure they can

:spray:

Good one. I've got a friend who can get you a set at the Improv, you've got talent

[Gregorian]

2. Is this the equivalent of shutting down Fox news? It sounds good.

Am I wrong?

It sounds like another un"fair and balanced" station. I even get that feeling intensified by the crying and shouting of "freedom". But that last part is just my own judgment.

[dave_p]

7. It's worse than Fox

I know it's hard to imagine, but try.

[Solo_in_MD]

3. No matter how much lipstick they put on this pig, its still supression of the media

which is never a good thing

[dave_p]

No it isn't

it's non-renewal of an expired public broadcasting license, which all governments reserve the right to do, especiially if the broadcaster backed a corrupt military coup attempt.

[originalpckelly]

14. Why not let another TV channel take the place, why put a government...

owned propaganda channel in it's place?

[Selatius]

17. I don't see any indication Chavez himself will control the empty slot

Unless he has stated that it will forever be state-run. Usually, when a corporation loses its broadcast license, the allotted airwaves are either given to a new corporation or can be given over to the workers to be reorganized as a co-op.

[Colobo]

21. "Televisión Venezolana Social" or Social Venezuelan Television is state run and controlled

[Selatius]

38. But nobody has said RCTV's airwaves are gonna be replaced with that.

SVT already has its own spectrum. I haven't seen any evidence he's gonna get two SVTs rather then sell the license to somebody else. If there's an article saying RCTV's specific spectrum of the broadcast airwaves will be given to SVT, I would like to see your source.

[originalpckelly]

44. Actually, yes they did. I believe a NYT article posted in LBN on a thread about this...

said the transmission equipment of RCTV would be seized and re-purposed for a state run TV channel espousing the virtues of the "revolution".

By one account in that same thread, armed soldiers confiscated the equipment. Tonight's an interesting night in Venezuela, what I'd do to be a fly on the wall in the Presidential Palace and the facilities of RCTV. I like watching history like this, even though it is profoundly depressing, I like to study what the people didn't do to stop tyranny so that I may learn how to stop it here in America.

[originalpckelly]

48. Correction: It was a Reuters article, here it is...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2860244&mesg_id=2860692

[Selatius]

52. OK, we have established broadcast equipment has been seized. Now...

show me where the equipment will now be turned on again except under the auspices of the Chavez government's channel.

[Colobo]

49. I saw the transition at 12am on Univision

They showed everything directly from Caracas.

[originalpckelly]

54. Was it actual footage of the takeover of the RCTV facilities...

or was it just the difference in content being broadcast on channel 2 in Venezuela? I wonder if that would be available for us to view on the internet somewhere.

[dave_p]

8. Dupe

Ah, it's double-clicking before the reload that does it.

[Selatius]

9. Only if you ignore the part about them advocating violent overthrow of an elected government. n/t

[ConsAreLiars]

11. Corporate control of the media is suppression of free speech.

Your position refers to restrictions on private concerns to use the public airwaves, so that is not a direct response.

You may believe that having sufficient money is the only relevant qualification for deciding what goes over the public airways, and that the corporations' power to broadcast should never be restricted, even when they use that control for treason or other crimes, but then you should say so directly. Otherwise, getting a license pulled seems a quite reasonable consequence for their participation in the coup attempt.

I'm sure Corporate Power would appreciate your fealty, or just laugh at it, but I suspect that you simply believe that the coup was a good cause and they should be rewarded. If so, say so, rather than putting out that "no suppression ever" nonsense.

[originalpckelly]

16. The problem is that Chavez controlling the media is no better.

Ideally stations would be co-ops privately owned by their viewers, in a way a capitalist version of collectivization. It would be a democratic system.

The problem here is that this isn't going to be a channel like C-SPAN or a local public events channel that might be government owned, it is going to be a channel that tells Venezuela how good the revolution is. That's a problem.

[ConsAreLiars]

34. You are going in the right direction, as I see things, but not far enough.

In your model 51% control would silence the 49% minority, assuming you mean 1 person = 1 vote rather than $1000 = 1 vote. Better than 1% silencing 99%.

Your objection to Chavez assumes he is just some odd tyrant who seized power, rather than a popularly elected representative of the great majority of the people. And it assumes that crimes committed by corporations in the attempt to overthrow a democratic government should be ignored. Again, I disagree.

[originalpckelly]

Do you believe in the doctrine of separation of powers?

Do you really think one person can be trusted with the power that Chavez has?

What you are saying is that there shouldn't be any separation of powers, that one man can be trusted with absolute power.

I'm not that naive.

Chavez is an imperfect human being like the rest of us, he is greedy and he will try to get more and more and more until he has it all. He's no better than the people running the corporation that owned RCTV, not one bit at all. Aside from the most mentally ill people who are sick and cause great violence, all of us have the same ability to be horrible to one another inside of us, people are flawed and imperfect.

The Bolivarian Constitution is so long (the longest in the world IIRC) that anything could be hidden in it. The power of decree is one major flaw, it is a flaw even more fatal than the flaw of emergency decrees in the Weimar Constitution. That's why I'm pretty sure it's going to be abused eventually.

We have a system that is old and flawed, and Bush is exploiting those flaws.

That doesn't mean we can't try again with a better constitution with even more check and balances and separation of powers.

[ConsAreLiars]

46. There is a legislative branch in Venezuela.

And a judicial branch. You start with the belief that the Chavez government is not legitimate and that you don't think the crimes of the TV network were real, or that they were justifiable under some sort of "higher law" than the those of the legislature and courts. Or you just believe that Corporate power should be unlimited. We don't agree on those assumptions. I believe that the truest democracy is one that serves the greatest majority possible, not the elite.

[originalpckelly]

50. Um, yeah, doesn't he have the power to rule by decree?

Aren't the people in the National Assembly all Chavez supporters? Didn't the opposition boycott elections to fill those spots?

And no, I don't believe corporate power should be unlimited, in fact I think it's as dangerous to democracy as totalitarian governments.

Why didn't Chavez shut RCTV down five years ago?

I saw the footage in "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" and I didn't see anything that was clearly indicative of a call to violence, it was done in such a clever way it never went that far, it supported the coup, but never by calling for actual acts of violence.

[ConsAreLiars]

57. The legislature gave Chavez authority to implement measures to return the control

control of the natural resources of that country, most notably oil, to the people of Venezuela. We should be so lucky. Regarding the station's participation in the US sponsored coup, I don't think there is any question about that fact.

[Larry Ogg]

86. So do you think conservative corporate extremist using media as a weapon of mass deception and

propaganda is ok, or should I say, always a good thing?

[bluestateguy]

5. Chavez is turning into a fat tyrant

Sometimes tyrants are elected, and sometimes they are popular with the people. That does not make overt censorship right.

[dave_p]

10. The station was antidemocratic trash

Why should denying it a license be wrong? Does a corporation enjoy absolute broadcast privileges for eternity?

[originalpckelly]

25. Why do Nazi's get to march through predominantly Jewish neighborhoods in America?

Our 1st amendment is not only there for popular speech, but also for vulgar and unpopular speech.

I find it odd that "public" airwaves should be treated any differently than a public space. You may state the usual bullshit about there only being a limited spectrum for broadcasting, but I would remind you most streets have a limit of the number of people they can hold as well. We would never consider it a legitimate reason to shut down a protest just based upon the content of speech, only the actions of those speaking. If these people in Venezuela committed a crime, they should be prosecuted in a court of law, if not then they ought to be able to speak their mind.

I watched "THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED" and I don't recall any threats of physical violence, just a bunch of dipshits thinking they were "all that" and talking about there being a "new President" and covering the propaganda of the rightwing dictator. Maybe the documentarians didn't include the part of them making threats of physical violence, but without proof I won't believe it.

[Selatius]

39. Vulgar and unpopular speech does not equal incitement of violence and destruction

The Supreme Court has made quite clear the distinction between spewing crap such as that from the Neo-Nazis and crying "fire" in a crowded theater or inciting violence.

[originalpckelly]

42. I don't know, I didn't see anything in the documentary...

"THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED" that would classify as an overt incitement to violence, I saw the same type of thing the Nazis say. They didn't say the protesters should be violent, they merely said they should take to the streets. They didn't say Chavez should be killed, they said the media was a deadly weapon. These things are not the equivalent of saying "I'm going to kill you on date x". They are not the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theatre. They fall under our system's determination of free speech, as good or bad as our system is. (If you would like to point out where I missed that, please do so, and I will be only too willing to correct my post, but I don't recall seeing a direct call to violence.)

[Selatius]

47. Allow me to cite two Supreme Court cases

Dennis v. United States (1951)

Eugene Dennis was a leader of the Communist Party in the United States between 1945 and 1948. He was arrested in New York for violation of Section 3 of the "Smith Act." The Act prohibited advocation of the overthrow of the United States Government by force and violence. The government felt that the speeches made by Dennis presented a threat to national security. Dennis appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that the Smith Act violated his First Amendment right to Free Speech. At issue was whether the Smith Act violated the First Amendment provision for freedom of speech or the Fifth Amendment due process clause.

The Court found that the Smith Act did not violate Dennis' First Amendment right to free speech. Although free speech is a guaranteed right, it is not unlimited. The right to free speech may be lifted if the speech presents a clear and present danger to overthrow any government in the United States by force or violence. Since the speech made by Dennis advocated his position that the government should be overthrown, it represented a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States. (Source - PATCH - See link below)

Yates v. United States (1957)

In 1951, fourteen persons were charged with violating the Smith Act for being members of the Communist Party in California. The Smith Act made it unlawful to advocate or organize the destruction or overthrow of any government in the United States by force. Yates claimed that his party was engaged in passive actions and that any violation of the Smith Act must involve active attempts to overthrow the government.

At issue was whether Yates' First Amendment right to freedom of speech protected his advocating the forceful overthrow of the government. The Supreme Court of the United States said that for the Smith Act to be violated, people must be encouraged to do something, rather than merely to believe in something. The Court drew a distinction between a statement of an idea and the advocacy that a certain action be taken. The Court ruled that the Smith Act did not prohibit "advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine." The convictions of the indicted members were reversed. (Source - PATCH - See link below)

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/CourtCases.htm

We see using these two cases as context that RCTV did actually advocate some concrete action rather than merely advocating the abstract idea of overthrowing the government.

[originalpckelly]

53. Yes, but you have yet to cite any hard evidence of footage where...

an actual incitement to use force occurred. Like I said, the documentary didn't show anyone call for anyone to be killed (at least that's the part I saw, I was told to watch 42 minutes in, as that is supposed to be the RCTV footage in question.)

Telling people to get out on the streets and protest is not an incitement to commit an act of violence in any rational point of view.

[Selatius]

59. We'll let the Supreme Court down there decide the case.

It's entered their court, and they'll rule on it eventually. If there's evidence, it will come out there.

At issue are several events:

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1180109500.html

[Selatius]

61. You can also read some of the preliminary motions the Supreme Court has made:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2307

[originalpckelly]

63. Quite frankly, I don't trust the source you provided.

It's controlled by the very people it's talking about.

[originalpckelly]

65. I should note that this source says the shutting down of RCTV has nothing to do with the coup...

but just something that was mandated in the constitution.

:eyes:

Told you, they have the longest constitution in the world, and I wouldn't be surprised at the crap the creators managed to hide in there.

[Selatius]

72. That was the Court's response to the charge by RCTV of...

the government violating the principle of the presumption of innocence. On that issue, the Court struck that argument as invalid because, as the Court said, the Constitution mandates the allotted airwaves will be turned over to public broadcasting as opposed to it reverting because they were behind the coup.

However, if you will read elsewhere, it specifically states:

With regard to the charge that the government violated RCTV’s right to due process, the court conceded that this is possible, stating, “In the present case it is necessary to conduct a detailed investigation of the administrative acts that are being challenged, as well as the acts of administrative authorities and to confront these with the arguments expressed on the part of the plaintiffs and the norms they refer to…”

[Selatius]

68. I wasn't aware it was controlled by the government. The four who run it are independent as far as I

know. FAIR doesn't have a story about the court proceedings. (You can google the Venezuelan Supreme Court yourself) If there is evidence that it is controlled by Chavez' government, do you have the links? But FAIR does have a write-up on the issue:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

[originalpckelly]

70. Have they ever featured an article critical of Venezuela and President Chavez?

I would point you to Faux News as an example of a propaganda organ that is state controlled. (Or at least controlled by someone who thinks they're the state.)

[Selatius]

78. Try this one highlighting issues surrounding Chavez and the party

And the struggle between ordinary folks and people up in the party structure.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1998

[originalpckelly]

62. Oh well, it's not the un-network and soon anyone who opposes Chavez will become an unperson.

Big Chavez like Big Bush is on the march. It's so sad to see freedom and hope dying everywhere in this world.

[shance]

13. No he hasn't. This is the corporate oil interests trying to demonize him.

To learn more, watch "This Revolution will not be televised".

Fascinating stuff.

[dave_p]

6. Good f***ing riddance

It wasn't "forced off the airwaves", it had no further right to the airwaves with the expiry of its 20-year license, having abused its privilege by supporting a right-wing military coup attempt against the elected government.

Broadcasting just became a cleaner business.

[DemDem07]

20. What?

A government that doesn't just re-up licenses automatically?

They must no love freedom or freedom's real savior...Money. ;)

[Sanctified]

12. Any time one wins an arguement by stifling their opponents speech...

it sounds like fascism to me. I don't care if they advocated a violent overthrow of the Government, I am pretty damn close to advocating the violent overthrow of our government should the Bush Regime have the right to shut down this website?

[Colobo]

23. Don't tell that to the Chavez loving people over here

Leftist authoritarism is great, according to them...

[Flatulo]

15. It is absolutely nothing like Fox News Channel

You may not like the content or the slant of FNC, but they are not breaking any laws.

I could find large numbers of people who feel that MSNBC is liberallt biased, but it's only on DU that I hear people (not you) calling for Fox to be shut down.

If you don't like Fox, change the channel. I don't understand why people are so threatened by it... a 2 year old could see their bias. Plus, 99% of their content is straight reporting.

Censorship is always bad. Always.

[originalpckelly]

31. "Plus, 99% of their content is straight reporting."

Oh yeah, yeah, with a large helping of RW BS.

I don't support shutting them down, but I don't support them and I think their bias smells to hog heaven. Even their so-called "straight reporting" is heavily biased.

[Flatulo]

40. Personally, I watch 'em for the hot newsbabes.

All the 24/7 news stations are mostly drama TV anyway (Anna Nichole, etc) Pure BS.

[Colobo]

18. Enjoy "Televisión Venezolana Social", you Chavez supporters

TV from Chavez to the people... really Fair and Balanced.

[tkmorris]

22. It beat "Coup Televison" hands down

Wouldn't you agree?

[Colobo]

24. No, I don't agree.

[originalpckelly]

33. Actually, considering Chavez tried a coup, it's just leftwing coup television...

not rightwing coup television.

[brook]

29. I listened

in horror as Perez-Jimenez thugs broke into a Maracaibo radio station and shot everyone there.

Pulling the license seems somewhat more democratic to me.

[Colobo]

30. Both extremes are wrong

And they both lead to the same thing.

By the way, the best thing that happened to Venezuela was Rómulo Betancourt.

[Selatius]

19. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting had this to say about it:

RCTV and other commercial TV stations were key players in the April 2002 coup that briefly ousted Chávez's democratically elected government. During the short-lived insurrection, coup leaders took to commercial TV airwaves to thank the networks. "I must thank Venevisión and RCTV," one grateful leader remarked in an appearance captured in the Irish film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The film documents the networks’ participation in the short-lived coup, in which stations put themselves to service as bulletin boards for the coup—hosting coup leaders, silencing government voices and rallying the opposition to a march on the Presidential Palace that was part of the coup plotters strategy.

On April 11, 2002, the day of the coup, when military and civilian opposition leaders held press conferences calling for Chávez's ouster, RCTV hosted top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, who rallied demonstrators to the march on the presidential palace. On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a Venevisión reporter (4/11/02): "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you."

That commercial TV outlets including RCTV participated in the coup is not at question; even mainstream outlets have acknowledged as much. As reporter Juan Forero, Jackson Diehl's colleague at the Washington Post, explained (1/18/07), "RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests," resulting in the coup, "and, once Chávez was ousted, cheered his removal." The conservative British newspaper the Financial Times reported (5/21/07), " officials argue with some justification that RCTV actively supported the 2002 coup attempt against Mr. Chávez."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

[Flatulo]

26. You Chavez apologists are going to have to eat some crow someday...

This guy is a tyrant. Sure, he is handing out candy to the poor and kissing a lot of babies, but if Bush did 1/100 of the stuff that he has pulled you'd be apoplectic.

Mark my words, people are going to start disappearing in Venezuala. But I fully expect some folks here will blame right-wing death squads and not the great benevolent Chavez.

[Colobo]

27. You are 100% fight, Flatulo... but some over here support left-wing authoritarism

A right winger does it and it is evil...

[Flatulo]

28. So I've noticed. Cognizant dissonance is alive and well here.

[David__77]

32. Why disappear?

There's a legal process for dealing with criminals in that country. There's no need for extra-legal measures. The state's actions are fully in accord with the constitution and laws of the country. I fully know Chavez's long-term program, and I fully support it. No "crow eating" will be done on my part.

[originalpckelly]

35. Oh I hope we're both around here in ten years, you'll be eating crow surprise.

Like I've said before, I've seen this movie and I know it ends.

[Colobo]

36. Keep dreaming.

You have too much faith in Latin American politics.

[Flatulo]

37. Oh, every country has laws for dealing with criminals...

It's those inconvenient noisy troublemakers who haven't actually broken the law, but nevertheless must be silenced.

The hypocricy here over Chavez is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. The Saddest Part Is Their Inability To Even Recognize It.

But you're right. But I'm aware enough to know he's as much a piece of shit as any other power hungry leader.

[originalpckelly]

55. It's not like we're supporting the opposition, but we're not supporting Chavez...

they just don't seem to be able to get that you can be against Chavez and call him out and still not like the Venezuelan rightwingers.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. Exactly.

[Solon]

51. Actually, yes they did break laws, over TV airwaves no less, but they weren't prosecuted for it...

which I feel was a mistake, on balance. I don't see why they were allowed to broadcast for 5 years after a coup they sponsored failed.

[originalpckelly]

56. I've watched the footage in "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"

and it did not show any sort of incitement to violence. Calling for people to take to the streets to protest should not be criminal in any country.

[Solon]

60. First, they didn't JUST say that...

Also, coups involve more than just "inciting violence". They TOLD people to stay inside, that everything was calm, and they also refused to report what was really happening in Caracas. The fact that they didn't say that people should be killed doesn't mean they didn't aid and abet the coup plotters. You also forget that they also gave the coup plotters access to their TV stations and literally CHEERING THEM ON, which was itself illegal. This is more than just "inciting violence" this is inciting revolution.

[1932]

66. You weren't watching closely.

The news got a lot of anti-chavez people out to march to the oil company headquarters. At the oil company headquarters they were directed to march on the palace because the coup leaders wanted a confrontation. There were anti-chavez snipers waiting on rooftops and they shot anti-chavez marchers.

The coup leaders recorded a statement about the deaths BEFORE they occured (because the whole thing was panned).

The anti-chavez crowds weren't incited to violence. The were set up to be killed by the people putatively on their side. The media was totally complicit because they worked with the coup plotters to get people to the oil station where they knew they'd be rerouted towards the palace where they got shot by their ring-leaders, the anti-chavez snipers.

If that happened in the US, the stations would lose a lot more than their license to use the public airwaves.

[originalpckelly]

69. Well, it's over with now:

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSN2723008820070528

"The closure was condemned by the U.S. Senate and the EU Parliament, but Chavez's supporters justified the move by criticizing the journalistic ethics of the channel."

[originalpckelly]

73. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the EU folks can probably be trusted.

[1932]

82. Psst. Those are the countries making money off a privatized media, neoliberal policy,

and an uninformed public in countries contemplating neoliberal policies.

And you're going to have to explain to me why "it's all over with now" is a persuasive argument, becuase I don't understand.

[LoZoccolo]

77. They won't, though.

No matter what he does, it'll be OK and for good reason, according to many of them.

[EFerrari]

84. I'm not a Chavez apologist. There is nothing to apologize for

unless it's to apologize TO Mr. Chavez for trying to kidnap him.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. He's As Much A Piece Of Garbage As Any Of The Rest. Shame On Him.

Not a one of these leaders is worthy of respect. Fuck him and fuck all of em.

[Flatulo]

45. But wait... Chavez knows and wants what's best for Venezuela, so

I guess the ends justifies the means... or something.

:sarcasm:

[Jim Warren]

64. The Nature of CIA Intervention in Venezuela

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1403

[illinoisprogressive]

67. Chavez is not a hero. He is a dictator and just because he stands up to Bush

does not make him a hero.

[Colobo]

74. Shhhh!!! Remeber- If it's from the left, it's good no matter what!

[ConsAreLiars]

79. In contrast to your view, that if it benefits corporate power it is a good thing.

Which side are you on? Don't answer, it was a rhetorical reminder of what is at the core of this issue, and your allegience is already obvious.

[ConsAreLiars]

75. Just because you believe the Chimpy lies does not make him a dictator.

The Carter Center affirmed the legitimacy of the election process. You may disapprove of the their choice about who they wanted. Chimpy and the PNAC gang certainly do. And you may choose to align yourself with the Amerikan fascist movement rather than Carter on this issue. But that does not make Chavez a dictator, regardless of the propaganda being shoveled down your throat by the multinational corporations, and apparently willingly swallowed whole.

[Flatulo]

80. If Bush tried this, I doubt you would be cheering him on...

From the BBC:

Venezuela's National Assembly has given initial approval to a bill granting the president the power to bypass congress and rule by decree for 18 months.

President Hugo Chavez says he wants "revolutionary laws" to enact sweeping political, economic and social changes.

He has said he wants to nationalise key sectors of the economy and scrap limits on the terms a president can serve.

I wonder how it is that some people cannot see that absolute, unchecked power is WRONG, no matter who wields it...

[1932]

83. Bush does have those powers. Remember Fast Track Trade Negotiation?

We give our presidents decree power to enact the laws that accelarate the concentration of wealth in the wealthy.

All Chavez's decree powers are for passing laws that devole power to people on the bottom.

It's the opposite.

[upi402]

76. Gee, I wonder where you heard that????

Maybe on the TV station that incited the coup against the democraticaly elected popular leader, Chavez????

[Flatulo]

81. Just a little critical thinking is all that's required.

I can understand that many people here "feel" that Chavez has acted in the best interests of his people, but put aside your feelings and think. If Bush acted in the same way that Chavez has, you'd be out in the streets with pitchforks and torches.

[UTUSN]

85. A-nuth-thur quack of thuh DUCK!!1 Waddle, waddle!!1 A-nuth-thur quack of thuh DUCK!!1 Waddle, wad

And I really DO deeply love my purist Left idealists. Such as these always have been and always will be a valued part of my Democratic being, but I sincerely believe Hugo is a deluding DUCK!!1 Those ducks that quack so sweetly and lay such beautiful eggs for the supposed benefit of the lowest of the low.

Overweight ducks bursting out of their MILITARY dress-ups!!1 Like Shrub on the flight deck!!1