Chavez did none of these things. Is your knowledge of history so shallow that you must bring up Hitler appro to nothing every chance that you get?

Chavez definitely dismantled democracy in Venezuela. (If you want to be technical, he started the project, and Maduro finished it.)

Specifically, vote count manipulation, the Supreme Court refusing to allow opposition legislatures to be seated, the constitutional committee stripping the legislature of its power... that's dismantling democracy.

> Your lie is easily disproved with a bit of research and I encourage readers to do so.

When you call someone a liar, the onus is on you to do the research and present your case for others. Asking everyone else to do the research doesn’t cut it. Your position should include citations that provide evidence that what you say is correct. What you have achieved here is essentially name-calling.

An unsubstantiated claim doesn't require a well researched counter. The suggestion to do research is just that a suggestion. I find that when dealing with posts written by people who are uninformed or have the intention of misinformation that it is important to point out that the issue is contested. If someone is lying then a bit of research will prove that and we can all be in agreement. If the subject isn't worth bothering with then my accusation surely can't be bothered with either.

There is a rather large difference between "your claim is wrong" and "you are lying". Feel free to state that my claim is wrong. If I didn't supply evidence, feel free to state without evidence that my claim is wrong. (Evidence talks louder than non-evidence, though, so if you supply some, that's a better refutation than simply saying that I was wrong.)

Saying that someone is lying is different. That's an attack on their character. You should do that very rarely, and only where you are sure. (Even better, only where you can prove that they are deliberately lying. Yes, that's a very high bar. Yes, that's how rarely you should make that charge.)