12
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 103:
Line 103: +
→Carter
:No I suggest we add a source that was used worldwide regarding the election which was ultimately accepted as fair by everybody who wasn't an opposition spokesperson or who's mates didn't want to get their hands on a few billion dollars of oil each year. You're trying to censor even the inclusion of that information and maintain a false impression of the election rather than allowing the reader to make up their own mind. Have to go out now but I'll change some of the wording and in a seperate edit add this information in a neutral way and you can then decide. [[User:Rutger|Rutger]] 01:26, 10 December 2009 (EST)
:No I suggest we add a source that was used worldwide regarding the election which was ultimately accepted as fair by everybody who wasn't an opposition spokesperson or who's mates didn't want to get their hands on a few billion dollars of oil each year. You're trying to censor even the inclusion of that information and maintain a false impression of the election rather than allowing the reader to make up their own mind. Have to go out now but I'll change some of the wording and in a seperate edit add this information in a neutral way and you can then decide. [[User:Rutger|Rutger]] 01:26, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Nonsense. Nobody thought this election was fair, and trying to deprive our readership of the knowledge that it was a rigged election is censorship. Your goal isn't to make the article more informative, but LESS informative, and your edit is designed to influence Conservapedia readers in favor of Chavez and socialism. There's nothing biased about saying an election was probably rigged if it was probably rigged.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:32, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Nonsense. Nobody thought this election was fair, and trying to deprive our readership of the knowledge that it was a rigged election is censorship. Your goal isn't to make the article more informative, but LESS informative, and your edit is designed to influence Conservapedia readers in favor of Chavez and socialism. There's nothing biased about saying an election was probably rigged if it was probably rigged.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:32, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::Nonsense yourself. One or two ratbags claiming something doesn't make it true and as per Andy this website operates on a concensus of facts, not the opinions of a few. Almost everyone (eventually, many claimed like you did there was fraud initially but gave up once they failed to find evidence of it) thought the election was fair except the opposition, those involved in the previous coup attempt and hardcore capitalists. Even Fox gave up on claiming they were fraudulent. You see the problem with the theory that it was rigged is how did he rig his first election? The next two? How did he rig the massive amount of popular support which overthrew the coup attempt? How did he physically "rig it"? '''And lastly, and very importantly, why did he rig the elections but not the referendum which would have given him greater power?''' I know it's strange that poor people wouldn't vote to support large companies and disgustingly greedy wealth distribution but it really did happen. [[User:Rutger|Rutger]] 22:57, 10 December 2009 (EST)