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

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: 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.

I prefer my vision to yours of taking us back to the stone age, thanks but I wil stick with what works, although it needs some major changes, no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, you utopian dreamers are all the same comrade.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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.

Wow... pot meet kettle...

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: 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.

You most certainly did define classes, though in a round-about way. You pointed to rot as representative of #1, which talks about putting power into higher classes. Since rot is talking about power to a leader instead of an economic class you are therefore stating that rot is for power in the hands of political class, and you are treating him negatively because of it. This is not necessarily untrue given the other alternative which is power in the hands of an economic class (which is what Ven was before Chavez). Since people who are against Chavez in this thread seem to be arguing FOR a pre-chavez Ven, we must deduce that you are pro-economic power instead of pro-political power. Yes, we both know that you and I would prefer power in the hands of the common man (choice #2), but that option hasn't been brought to this discussion. Therefore my choice was valid as stated. Furthermore I pointed out that indeed we had seen both classes merge which creates the worst possible scenerio.

I would argue that fascism has been less of a factor than has aristocracy or oligarchy. I would argue that democracies have no inherent tie to an upper economic class. As stated many times I fear corporations, and money infinitely more than I fear governments in general. The greatest fear is when both become one, as in America. Hence I am for those who stand against America.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: 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.

I prefer my vision to yours of taking us back to the stone age, thanks.

So another side-track and personal attack. I'm not taking us anywhere, rot, I believe in people and letting them make their own decisions. You OTOH are taking us back to the days of medieval absolute monarchs, their fabulously wealthy and all-controlling barons, and the rest of us as lowly peasants forced to kneel at the altar of doublethink. Almighty Chavez and his absolute control of the PDVSA and its unions.
When people say that Orwell was a prophet, rot, they use you as the perfect example.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: 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.

You most certainly did define classes, though in a round-about way. You pointed to rot as representative of #1, which talks about putting power into higher classes. Since rot is talking about power to a leader instead of an economic class you are therefore stating that rot is for power in the hands of political class, and you are treating him negatively because of it. This is not necessarily untrue given the other alternative which is power in the hands of an economic class (which is what Ven was before Chavez). Since people who are against Chavez in this thread seem to be arguing FOR a pre-chavez Ven, we must deduce that you are pro-economic power instead of pro-political power. Yes, we both know that you and I would prefer power in the hands of the common man (choice #2), but that option hasn't been brought to this discussion. Therefore my choice was valid as stated. Furthermore I pointed out that indeed we had seen both classes merge which creates the worst possible scenerio.

I would argue that fascism has been less of a factor than has aristocracy or oligarchy. I would argue that democracies have no inherent tie to an upper economic class. As stated many times I fear corporations, and money infinitely more than I fear governments in general. The greatest fear is when both become one, as in America. Hence I am for those who stand against America.

Tell ya what... you find me a powerful political leader who is also poor, and your argument might have merit.


edit: Oh BTW, I would like to see one single instance where I have ever argued for pre-Chavez Venezuela. You won't find it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Arguing for Chavez because he might better than what Venezuela had before is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Would you argue in favor of Stalin because he was better than the Czars?

 

[daniel49]

steeple: I think your full of crap, but at least your sincerely full of crap.

Chavez on the other hand has aspirations for himelf and the temporary blinding of some uneducated people in Venezuela into thinking he cares about them is only a means to an end.
Throw a few petro dollars towards my family and I will vote for you El Presidente.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

edit: Oh BTW, I would like to see one single instance where I have ever argued for pre-Chavez Venezuela. You won't find it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Arguing for Chavez because he might better than what Venezuela had before is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Would you argue in favor of Stalin because he was better than the Czars?

So now Chavez = Stalin... :roll:

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: daniel49
steeple: I think your full of crap, but at least your sincerely full of crap.

Chavez on the other hand has aspirations for himelf and the temporary blinding of some uneducated people in Venezuela into thinking he cares about them is only a means to an end.
Throw a few petro dollars towards my family and I will vote for you El Presidente.

Uneducated? Hmm, funny thing is the first thing he set upon to do was EDUCATE the masses.

Try again, you may want to update your talking points.


Venezuela?s Literacy Triumph

Venezuela has a history of discrimination in education. New social programs are eradicating that past discrimination by providing equal access to educational opportunities ? even for the poorest and most isolated citizens. With more than 1.2 million adults taught to read in the last year, Venezuela is creating the conditions that will allow all citizens to participate in the democratic process for the first time.


Venezuela, which eradicated illiteracy in two years, teaching almost a million and half people to read and write, was the acid test for ?Yes I Can?. But the method has been successfully applied to more than 400,000 students in twelve states of Mexico (close to 250,000 taught to read and write), in Mozambique (13,702) and in Ecuador (10,435); in New Zealand (5620), primarily among the indigenous Maori population. link

Oops, that destroys that right wing fallacy.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: daniel49
steeple: I think your full of crap, but at least your sincerely full of crap.

Chavez on the other hand has aspirations for himelf and the temporary blinding of some uneducated people in Venezuela into thinking he cares about them is only a means to an end.
Throw a few petro dollars towards my family and I will vote for you El Presidente.

Daniel, have any evidence that Chavez has some evil purpose at odds with the poor of Venezuela?

Your statement far better applies to the Bush crowd who has ulterior motives and uses the republican voters and religious right as meants to their ends.

There's a whole lot of evidence for that - just look at the shift of wealth. Look at how they made the drg program screw the senior and pay off the drug companies.

Look at how they set up the tax cuts to give far more to the ultra wealth, how they want to get rid of the estate tax which will shift yet more hundreds of billions tax off the rich.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

edit: Oh BTW, I would like to see one single instance where I have ever argued for pre-Chavez Venezuela. You won't find it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Arguing for Chavez because he might better than what Venezuela had before is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Would you argue in favor of Stalin because he was better than the Czars?

So now Chavez = Stalin... :roll:

I didn't say that, did I? What I said was that 2 wrongs don't make a right, and then used Stalin and the Czars as an example. Thank you though for once again demonstrating your lack of basic comprehension skills.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: daniel49
steeple: I think your full of crap, but at least your sincerely full of crap.

Chavez on the other hand has aspirations for himelf and the temporary blinding of some uneducated people in Venezuela into thinking he cares about them is only a means to an end.
Throw a few petro dollars towards my family and I will vote for you El Presidente.

Daniel, have any evidence that Chavez has some evil purpose at odds with the poor of Venezuela?

Your statement far better applies to the Bush crowd who has ulterior motives and uses the republican voters and religious right as meants to their ends.

There's a whole lot of evidence for that - just look at the shift of wealth.

how about an entire Island of evidence. As he seeks to walk in the shadow of his mentor.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: daniel49

how about an entire Island of evidence. As he seeks to walk in the shadow of his mentor.

Well, start climbing, where are the links?

Look up, I just destroyed the last BS talking point you were spewing in here.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: daniel49
steeple: I think your full of crap, but at least your sincerely full of crap.

Chavez on the other hand has aspirations for himelf and the temporary blinding of some uneducated people in Venezuela into thinking he cares about them is only a means to an end.
Throw a few petro dollars towards my family and I will vote for you El Presidente.

Daniel, have any evidence that Chavez has some evil purpose at odds with the poor of Venezuela?

Your statement far better applies to the Bush crowd who has ulterior motives and uses the republican voters and religious right as meants to their ends.

There's a whole lot of evidence for that - just look at the shift of wealth.

I don't think Chavez has any evil purposes against the poor of Venezuela. Quite the opposite, I think he plans to help them as much as he can as long as they still stay poor. The confusion here I think stems from people thinking of rich and poor as absolutes when they are relatives.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: daniel49
steeple: I think your full of crap, but at least your sincerely full of crap.

Chavez on the other hand has aspirations for himelf and the temporary blinding of some uneducated people in Venezuela into thinking he cares about them is only a means to an end.
Throw a few petro dollars towards my family and I will vote for you El Presidente.

Daniel, have any evidence that Chavez has some evil purpose at odds with the poor of Venezuela?

Your statement far better applies to the Bush crowd who has ulterior motives and uses the republican voters and religious right as meants to their ends.

There's a whole lot of evidence for that - just look at the shift of wealth.

I don't think Chavez has any evil purposes against the poor of Venezuela. Quite the opposite, I think he plans to help them as much as he can as long as they still stay poor. The confusion here I think stems from people thinking of rich and poor as absolutes when they are relatives.

It is all a conspiracy to keep us down huh?

Damn the MAN!

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: daniel49
steeple: I think your full of crap, but at least your sincerely full of crap.

Chavez on the other hand has aspirations for himelf and the temporary blinding of some uneducated people in Venezuela into thinking he cares about them is only a means to an end.
Throw a few petro dollars towards my family and I will vote for you El Presidente.

Daniel, have any evidence that Chavez has some evil purpose at odds with the poor of Venezuela?

Your statement far better applies to the Bush crowd who has ulterior motives and uses the republican voters and religious right as meants to their ends.

There's a whole lot of evidence for that - just look at the shift of wealth.

I don't think Chavez has any evil purposes against the poor of Venezuela. Quite the opposite, I think he plans to help them as much as he can as long as they still stay poor. The confusion here I think stems from people thinking of rich and poor as absolutes when they are relatives.

It is all a conspiracy to keep him up?

Damn the MAN!

fixed

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: daniel49

how about an entire Island of evidence. As he seeks to walk in the shadow of his mentor.

Sorry, you failed to prove your claim that he has some evil ulterior agenda at the expense of the poor. Try again, or you lose.

The fact that he is allied with Castro, who has also resisted domination by the US, does not prove your claim.

The poor in Cuba have been hurt terribly by US sanctions apart from Castro's poor economics.

On a side note, where's your consistency and call for the same total sanctions against China?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: daniel49
steeple: I think your full of crap, but at least your sincerely full of crap.

Chavez on the other hand has aspirations for himelf and the temporary blinding of some uneducated people in Venezuela into thinking he cares about them is only a means to an end.
Throw a few petro dollars towards my family and I will vote for you El Presidente.

Daniel, have any evidence that Chavez has some evil purpose at odds with the poor of Venezuela?

Your statement far better applies to the Bush crowd who has ulterior motives and uses the republican voters and religious right as meants to their ends.

There's a whole lot of evidence for that - just look at the shift of wealth.

I don't think Chavez has any evil purposes against the poor of Venezuela. Quite the opposite, I think he plans to help them as much as he can as long as they still stay poor. The confusion here I think stems from people thinking of rich and poor as absolutes when they are relatives.

It is all a conspiracy to keep us down huh?

Damn the MAN!

"Cult of personality" is not a term you're familiar with? It seems you didn't understand my point.

Plus, aren't you the one always talking endlessly about the evil corporate conspiracies to keep us down?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: daniel49

how about an entire Island of evidence. As he seeks to walk in the shadow of his mentor.

Sorry, you failed to prove your claim that he has some evil ulterior agenda at the expense of the poor. Try again, or you lose.

The fact that he is allied with Castro, who has also resisted domination by the US, does not prove your claim.

The poor in Cuba have been hurt terribly by US sanctions apart from Castro's poor economics.

On a side note, where's your consistency and call for the same total sanctions against China?

I think Chavez has learned a lot from Castro, as a lot of countries have learned that there is good in socialism and free markets, like anything else in life, you take the good of each and blend until you get it right. But too much of anything will spoil the meal.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

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. Socialist not communist you tool. :roll:

Uh that isnt the argument here, the argument is you defending the states right to forcefully take private property or business. You claim it is under the guise of "Its the peoples", when I am saying we have heard that story before in the locations mentioned before that were clearly not democratic in any form or function.

Do you usually carry on conversations like this in person? Your complete lack of understanding of what you are speaking about is amazing.

Nationalizing a industry is not communist, it has been done long before marx even wrote any books.

Like a record, you are a perfect example of the failures of our public school system.

the interesting thing is the steeple is correct. nationalizing an industry is not an action that is only compatible with communism, but in fact a variety of ideologies and not only of the liberal bent. Further, it is not incompatible with democracy, in fact it is the obvious result of democracy, and why republicanism instead is the dominate system.

Heh you arent much better. The argument isnt about nationalizing industries == communism. It is the repetitive reason that is it "for the people" that is. In the past when the state stole private property or business from the citizens for the citizens, it has been in the mentioned counties under the guise of communism.

 

[Steeplerot]

Genx nationalizing stuff has gone on forever, heck we nationalized a lot of industry during the world wars for efficiency and to save money for the greater war effort. Does this make us commies?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Genx nationalizing stuff has gone on forever, heck we nationalized a lot of industry during the world wars for efficiency and to save money for the greater war effort. Does this make us commies?

I dont know how to make this much more clear for you. If you dont understand after this iteration please take some remedial classes on the taxpayers dime at the local community college.

The argument isnt about nationalizing industries == communism. It is the repetitive reason that is it "for the people" that is. In the past when the state stole private property or business from the citizens for the citizens, it has been in the mentioned counties under the guise of communism.

Seriously.......................this isnt about nationalizing an industry equals communism. It is about doing it under the pretext of "for the people" in the mentioned countries\regions was tied to communists.

And for a refresher those countries\regions were Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, SE Asia, China.

Good god

 

[Vic]

Personally, I don't care how Venezuela chooses to run itself. My issue is with people who say America is evil and Chavez is great. I wonder if they ever ask themselves how they would like to live under Chavez? Probably not.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: 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.

You most certainly did define classes, though in a round-about way. You pointed to rot as representative of #1, which talks about putting power into higher classes. Since rot is talking about power to a leader instead of an economic class you are therefore stating that rot is for power in the hands of political class, and you are treating him negatively because of it. This is not necessarily untrue given the other alternative which is power in the hands of an economic class (which is what Ven was before Chavez). Since people who are against Chavez in this thread seem to be arguing FOR a pre-chavez Ven, we must deduce that you are pro-economic power instead of pro-political power. Yes, we both know that you and I would prefer power in the hands of the common man (choice #2), but that option hasn't been brought to this discussion. Therefore my choice was valid as stated. Furthermore I pointed out that indeed we had seen both classes merge which creates the worst possible scenerio.

I would argue that fascism has been less of a factor than has aristocracy or oligarchy. I would argue that democracies have no inherent tie to an upper economic class. As stated many times I fear corporations, and money infinitely more than I fear governments in general. The greatest fear is when both become one, as in America. Hence I am for those who stand against America.

Tell ya what... you find me a powerful political leader who is also poor, and your argument might have merit.


edit: Oh BTW, I would like to see one single instance where I have ever argued for pre-Chavez Venezuela. You won't find it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Arguing for Chavez because he might better than what Venezuela had before is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Would you argue in favor of Stalin because he was better than the Czars?

Sure thing. Athenian democracy used numerous methods of lottery and cattle-call to avoid over-representing one class over another. Athens was certainly a powerful political entity. Agathocles became King of Syracuse, and a very influential figure in mediteranean politics. Numerous cultures have evolved methods of rule which placed political power either in the hands of the people, or random persons regardless of socio-economic class, etc. A number of latin american rulers in the last century have been at best middle class, owing to a primarily military vocation.

Well if you aren't arguing for pre-chavez why are you even here? It does no good to come in and tell us we're wrong for backing chavez (and supporting that stand) and then assume that we will assume you don't want what was before either. You either get chavez, or you get what they had before. This isn't fairy land where you make a wish for a government of the people and presto there it is.

"I ask not at once for no government, but at once a better government." You can't have everything immediately, you have to progress along a path. Letting money and corps rule it all is bad, so change to something better in some way. Then whn you've done that identify the next problem and make that change. Then just keep going like that.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Genx nationalizing stuff has gone on forever, heck we nationalized a lot of industry during the world wars for efficiency and to save money for the greater war effort. Does this make us commies?

I dont know how to make this much more clear for you. If you dont understand after this iteration please take some remedial classes on the taxpayers dime at the local community college.

The argument isnt about nationalizing industries == communism. It is the repetitive reason that is it "for the people" that is. In the past when the state stole private property or business from the citizens for the citizens, it has been in the mentioned counties under the guise of communism.

Seriously.......................this isnt about nationalizing an industry equals communism. It is about doing it under the pretext of "for the people" in the mentioned countries\regions was tied to communists.

And for a refresher those countries\regions were Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, SE Asia, China.

Good god

You are picking and choosing examples to fit your agenda, it doesn't fly.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic
Personally, I don't care how Venezuela chooses to run itself. My issue is with people who say America is evil and Chavez is great. I wonder if they ever ask themselves how they would like to live under Chavez? Probably not.

Sure, I'll bite.
I would vote for him, I think he has some great ideas how to bring some equality back into the corporate corrupt mess of a society we have where the rich have far more wealth then they need.

Lesse:

Healthcare for all?Check.

Massive profits going back to the workers instead of a few rich elites? Check

Education for all people and knowledge of political system, even the poor? Check.

Firm stance on terrorism but responsible on not creating more terrorism in combating it? Check.