No Breaks for "Mr. Danger": Chavez wins re-election by LANDSLIDE

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

If you love Chavez, then you and the ideas that founded this country have pretty much zero in common, no matter how much you might hate America's current policies.
Personally, I wish WE would tell the rest of the world to fsck off, and then we can watch it crumble.

You would not have a clue what the founding fathers were about if franklin bit you on the ass.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Wootness!!!

Actually I'm not as big a Chavez fan as I once was, but I still like anything that stands against America.

I agree, I have always been pretty cautious but as long as he stays positive Viva Chavez! Viva Democracy, Viva the People, Viva Freedom and long live The revolution.

I am not anti-american though, more like anti bush regime establishment. But I am sure this is what you meant.

Yes, Viva punishing the Middle class, Viva punishing the rich, Viva eliminating presidential term limits, Viva eliminating ownership of businesses, Viva confiscation of land.

Chavez is the farthest from Democracy you can get unless you step into communism.

Nothing is democratic about corporate run monopolies exploiting people, sorry. Term limits are decided by constitutions and the people, everywhere is not like america *gasp*

Corporate monopolies are a result of a society's economic model and the regulations that surround it. The economic model is derived from laws established by the DEMICRATICALLY ELECTED officials in the various levels of authority. A PUBLIC company's monopoly is much more democratic than the direct confiscation of a business or industry and monopolizing such (Venezuala's oil) by political authorities. In the latter, you have one group of the public (the majority) confiscating another group's (generally the minority, in this case the business owners) property for the benefit of the majority. Yep, that sure sounds like democracy in action.

And without term limits, you essentially wipe out the democratic freedom of electing your officials. So the fact that it would be different than the US, as you point out, is nothing but a blind you hide behind to the fact that general population has now been effectively removed from democratically electing it's representatives.

Term limits are not democratic enforcers. Hell, the only term limits we have is for the president pretty much. Do you consider us a democracy? There's a LOT more abusive structures to democracy - socio-economic are among the largest. In other words, allowing a small percentage to control the wealth and power over the majority is a greater crippler to democracy than any kind of term limit could ever be.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic
Yay for oppression!!

:roll:


Chavez is anti-liberal, dumbasses. I could pull out quote after quote from him decrying liberalism.

He is anti-neo-liberalism. IN others words new world order free market crap Please grab a clue from your nearest link.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

And neither is state forcefully taking private property or business.

It is not theirs to monopolize, it is the peoples, too bad for them, they can take their money elsewhere where they are allowed to continue their exploitation.

It's the peoples is tantamount to "it is the states". In other words no different than what the communists did in Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, SE Asia, and China.
So you were saying about "democracy"?

A few State run industries are not communist, try reading a book sometime. Communism is when everything is state run.

Chavez is Socialist not communist you tool. :roll:

Thats like saying we are communist because our interstates are state owned.

You wanna talk state run companies, let's talk Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer. It was only our Supreme Court (which isn't democratically elected btw) that stopped the president from doing this. Again, you wanna point at everyone else except America. (not you rot, talking to the other uneducated tools and asshats in here)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

And neither is state forcefully taking private property or business.

It is not theirs to monopolize, it is the peoples, too bad for them, they can take their money elsewhere where they are allowed to continue their exploitation.

That is NOT democracy, that is Socialism. geesh.

ffs democracy is a political system, socialism is an economic system. The two are not incompatible or mutually exclusive.

Oh no, socialism is a political as well as economic system. The mistake here on both sides is caused by people who think democracy is anything more than just a way that political decisions are made. It's not even really a political system in its own right. The people could just as easily vote to enslave themselves as a dictator could do so on his own. An absolute monarch could be more kind to his people than the people to themselves. And so forth.
The basis for America being a representative democratic republic is based off what is known as Jefferson's axiom, which is "What all agree upon probably is right; what no two agree on most probably is wrong."

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands


Term limits are not democratic enforcers. Hell, the only term limits we have is for the president pretty much. Do you consider us a democracy? There's a LOT more abusive structures to democracy - socio-economic are among the largest. In other words, allowing a small percentage to control the wealth and power over the majority is a greater crippler to democracy than any kind of term limit could ever be.

It is really sad, the right wingnuts, all they know is Socialism = bad, taxes = theft, anything not exactly like america system of government = bad.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Wootness!!!

Actually I'm not as big a Chavez fan as I once was, but I still like anything that stands against America.

I agree, I have always been pretty cautious but as long as he stays positive Viva Chavez! Viva Democracy, Viva the People, Viva Freedom and long live The revolution.

I am not anti-american though, more like anti bush regime establishment. But I am sure this is what you meant.

Well, definitely anti-bush...but moreover anti-american corporatism/capitalism, anti-american foreign policy, anti-american imperialism, etc. The US has a really crappy oversees record, especially in latin america. We're not just talking bush, we're talking back to founding days. It's good to see them rising up and growing a pair.

I would encourage you to move to Venezuela then that way you can really rage against the machine.

The whole country is like a Pinko Bedwetter theme park, you'd love it.

No thanks, I'm too in love with the idea and foundation of my country. It's just the greedy egocentric bastards that keep screwing it up that I hate. As soon as the rest of the world tells America what it can go do with itself I'm hopeful that the aristocracy will crumble and we'll actually become what we were intended to be.

If you love Chavez, then you and the ideas that founded this country have pretty much zero in common, no matter how much you might hate America's current policies.
Personally, I wish WE would tell the rest of the world to fsck off, and then we can watch it crumble.

Only way to solve it for it to happen and we can just wait and see. As we've noted before we have deep and strong differences in our warrants with regards to politics.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Oh no, socialism is a political as well as economic system. The mistake here on both sides is caused by people who think democracy is anything more than just a way that political decisions are made. It's not even really a political system in its own right. The people could just as easily vote to enslave themselves as a dictator could do so on his own. An absolute monarch could be more kind to his people than the people to themselves. And so forth.
The basis for America being a representative democratic republic is based off what is known as Jefferson's axiom, which is "What all agree upon probably is right; what no two agree on most probably is wrong."

*yawn* this is a fringe libertarian semantics again, please quit with the BS libertarian propaganda noone but you and bill o reilly and your local gun club care about.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

If you love Chavez, then you and the ideas that founded this country have pretty much zero in common, no matter how much you might hate America's current policies.
Personally, I wish WE would tell the rest of the world to fsck off, and then we can watch it crumble.

You would not have a clue what the founding fathers were about if franklin bit you on the ass.

:laugh:


I would appreciate it, rot, if you could dispense with your lies and personal attacks this time.

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: (1) Those that fear and distrust people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. (2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist; and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. " -- Thomas Jefferson, 1824

You're representative of #1, rot. You're in denial about it yourself, but it is evident in the way that you fear and distrust people, and demand that dictators like Chavez control the people for (in your opinion) their own good.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
Yay for oppression!!

:roll:


Chavez is anti-liberal, dumbasses. I could pull out quote after quote from him decrying liberalism.

He is anti-neo-liberalism. IN others words new world order free market crap Please grab a clue from your nearest link.

Perhaps you would care to link us evidence of where the liberal founding fathers were opposed to free markets?

Not that I think of government-favored mega-corporations as being symbolic of a "free market," I'm just asking you to back up your bullsh!t.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

If you love Chavez, then you and the ideas that founded this country have pretty much zero in common, no matter how much you might hate America's current policies.
Personally, I wish WE would tell the rest of the world to fsck off, and then we can watch it crumble.

You would not have a clue what the founding fathers were about if franklin bit you on the ass.

:laugh:


I would appreciate it, rot, if you could dispense with your lies and personal attacks this time.

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: (1) Those that fear and distrust people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. (2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist; and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. " -- Thomas Jefferson, 1824

You're representative of #1, rot. You're in denial about it yourself, but it is evident in the way that you fear and distrust people, and demand that dictators like Chavez control the people for (in your opinion) their own good.

Uh huh, and ayn rand came down and told you this insight into my personal belief. *yawn* how do you listen to yourself and not fall asleep?

You must be a terrible person to drink with Vic.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

If you love Chavez, then you and the ideas that founded this country have pretty much zero in common, no matter how much you might hate America's current policies.
Personally, I wish WE would tell the rest of the world to fsck off, and then we can watch it crumble.

You would not have a clue what the founding fathers were about if franklin bit you on the ass.

:laugh:


I would appreciate it, rot, if you could dispense with your lies and personal attacks this time.

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: (1) Those that fear and distrust people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. (2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist; and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. " -- Thomas Jefferson, 1824

You're representative of #1, rot. You're in denial about it yourself, but it is evident in the way that you fear and distrust people, and demand that dictators like Chavez control the people for (in your opinion) their own good.

You're defining classes as political class, we're defining it as socio-economic class. In other words do you want the president in charge, or the CEO? Obviously the correct answer is neither, I'll run my own show, but that's not what we have either. I'd rather see strong government than strong corporation/economic elitism if I have to make such a choice. Regretably in America those two have become one and now we have the worst of both worlds.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Oh no, socialism is a political as well as economic system. The mistake here on both sides is caused by people who think democracy is anything more than just a way that political decisions are made. It's not even really a political system in its own right. The people could just as easily vote to enslave themselves as a dictator could do so on his own. An absolute monarch could be more kind to his people than the people to themselves. And so forth.
The basis for America being a representative democratic republic is based off what is known as Jefferson's axiom, which is "What all agree upon probably is right; what no two agree on most probably is wrong."

*yawn* this is a fringe libertarian semantics again, please quit with the BS libertarian propaganda noone but you and bill o reilly and your local gun club care about.

Bill O'Reilly is not even remotely libertarian, so there you go making a fool of yourself again.

Second, that quote is hardly "fringe libertarian semantics," it's from a letter written by Jefferson to John Adams in 1817, and is undisputed political science. Read it again maybe? Because I think you misunderstood it.

I think you were spouting some nonsense about how I don't have a clue what the Founding Fathers were about...? You might want to consider how stupid you're making yourself look... again.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

If you love Chavez, then you and the ideas that founded this country have pretty much zero in common, no matter how much you might hate America's current policies.
Personally, I wish WE would tell the rest of the world to fsck off, and then we can watch it crumble.

You would not have a clue what the founding fathers were about if franklin bit you on the ass.

:laugh:


I would appreciate it, rot, if you could dispense with your lies and personal attacks this time.

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: (1) Those that fear and distrust people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. (2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist; and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. " -- Thomas Jefferson, 1824

You're representative of #1, rot. You're in denial about it yourself, but it is evident in the way that you fear and distrust people, and demand that dictators like Chavez control the people for (in your opinion) their own good.

Uh huh, and ayn rand came down and told you this insight into my personal belief. *yawn* how do you listen to yourself and not fall asleep?

You must be a terrible person to drink with Vic.

I'll take this as you conceding.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

If you love Chavez, then you and the ideas that founded this country have pretty much zero in common, no matter how much you might hate America's current policies.
Personally, I wish WE would tell the rest of the world to fsck off, and then we can watch it crumble.

You would not have a clue what the founding fathers were about if franklin bit you on the ass.

:laugh:


I would appreciate it, rot, if you could dispense with your lies and personal attacks this time.

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: (1) Those that fear and distrust people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. (2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist; and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. " -- Thomas Jefferson, 1824

You're representative of #1, rot. You're in denial about it yourself, but it is evident in the way that you fear and distrust people, and demand that dictators like Chavez control the people for (in your opinion) their own good.

You're defining classes as political class, we're defining it as socio-economic class. In other words do you want the president in charge, or the CEO? Obviously the correct answer is neither, I'll run my own show, but that's not what we have either. I'd rather see strong government than strong corporation/economic elitism if I have to make such a choice. Regretably in America those two have become one and now we have the worst of both worlds.

I didn't make any definition of "classes," so your entire argument here is straw man. You are also deeply confused about the nature between government and corporations. Strong governments and strong corporations/economic elitism go hand in hand. Look at Chavez's Venezuela and the all-powerful PDVSA. Look at history, schoolteacher.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
We are not "the" evil, but we are not exactly helping anyone out at this point but ourselves.

Although around the world I think america would be the one pointed out as the most dangerous at this time sadly.

And letting our country turn into a fascist right wing bully aligns ourselves AGAINST THE WHOLE FREAKING WORLD. So get over it, dissent is good.

Et tu, Brutus?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

I'll take this as you conceding.

No, arguing with libertarian cultist gets really boring actually, one can only take so much selfishness in one week before it takes a toll on your hopes for the goodness in humanity.

 

[Vic]

That's the terrible thing about America, all this dissent that our imperialist government and its evil corporations allow. We need to be more like Chavez's glorious Venezuela, where dissenters are shot or imprisoned.

:roll:

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic
where dissenters are shot or imprisoned.

:roll:

Lets see a link there buddy.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

I'll take this as you conceding.

No, arguing with libertarian cultist gets really boring actually, one can only take so much selfishness in one week before it takes a toll on your hopes for the goodness in humanity.

How do you take yourself then?

"Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed, it is exactly its counterpart. " -- Thomas Jefferson, 1814

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
where dissenters are shot or imprisoned.

:roll:

Lets see a link there buddy.

As I recall from my earlier postings on this, the conspiracy theorist interpretation of those events is that it was CIA snipers doing the shooting. edit: at least that's what conjur said.

:roll:

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
where dissenters are shot or imprisoned.

:roll:

Lets see a link there buddy.

As I recall from my earlier postings on this, the conspiracy theorist interpretation of those events is that it was CIA snipers doing the shooting. edit: at least that's what conjur said.

:roll:

Well, the video evidence that shows the us backed stations were lying their asses off about chavez supporters firing on pro-imperialists would make you the CT, so what say you? linky plz!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Craig234
What many of us are happy to see - oh, let's call us 'supporters of democracy' - is democracy work in places like Venezuela in electing people who will represent the people, rather than be puppets of foreign interests, largely meaning US corporations and the government serving them.

It's not anti-US; it's recognizing the 'absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely' principle which can lead the US to become a big bully nation simply oppressing other American nations economically, often through brutal means, and it's praising when the *corrupt* aspects are challenged by those nations.

When the US treats them well and fairly, we look for those nations to have good relations with the US, and if they don't, they can be criticized.

IMO, those who demand the other nations lie down and let their governments serve foreign corporations are like any other evil badtards in history, though admittedly they are often simply crminally ignorant about the situation and think they're supporting something else.

It reminds me a little of the apartheid divisions in the US earlier - divided between those who wanted to stand against apartheid on the left, and the right who didn't exactly like apartheid, but opposed whatever the left wanted just out of obstinence and were too lazy to get too informed or concerned, and saw no reason to change their spending habits.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

- The summary of the modern republican voter who votes in evil out of ignorance

Has America?s own anti-Americanism no limits? Placing the non-aligned movement ahead of us places your loyalties firmly with Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. Telling us we?re the evil in the world cannot be expressed in words of anger that are remotely strong enough.

You are completely wrong, Jaskalas, when you refer to that as anti-Americanism.

You fail to grasp the concept of 'rights for all'. When I support the right to a criminal getting a fair trial rather than being shot on the spot by the police, that doesn't make me 'pro-criminal' and 'anti-police'. When I support the right of republicans to get to vote fairly in elections and not be disenfranchised, that doesn't make 'put me squarely on the side of the republicans over the democrats'. And when I support *democracy* for all, meaning Venezuela should have it rather than a puppet put in place by America to serve American interests, that is not an anti-American position - you may recall a few celebrated Americans who objected to that same sort of behavior when the government of England tried to put in place governors who put their interests ahead of the American colonists, and some words they wrote about the rights of the people.

I'm not in favor of Venezuela placing its puppet in charge of the US, and I'm not in favor of the US placing its puppet in charge of Venezuela.

You are an anti-democratic, anti-American tyrant in your political support for the alternative position to mine in Venezuela.

 

[Vic]

Sorry, rot, I'm not going to let you side-track from your personal attack. Kindly explain how I am the one being "selfish" when you are the one who wishes to see authoritarian power used to fix the world into your personal vision of how you think it should be.

 

[fitzov]

lol