No more term limits in Venezula

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Here we go again. Cue Steeplerot and the others saying Chavez could do no wrong. Even in a fully functional and mature democratic society, term limits are an effective tool against tyrany.

How will Obama be able to fix this country in only 4 (maybe 8) years?

Watch and see. Even though I support him, I wouldn't want him to remain in office indefinitely. If he can't do it in 4-8yr, then it is time to give someone else a try. Past a certain amount of time, the cult of personality surrounding an executive will overtake the institution(s) of democracy. This has been shown time and time again.

No third term! :thumbsdown:

No nth (n>2) term! :thumbsdown: xn

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp
how much damage to this country could have been avoided if Bill Clinton was not term limited out?

Not much. Economy was already tanking under Bill and the majoirty of the planning for 9-11 took place under his nose meaning that would have gone off without a hitch. He signed the bill loosening lending restrictions which means the housing bubble wouldnt have been averted. What is on the table is Afghanistan and Iraq. I see him going into Afghanistan, not so much Iraq.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
how much damage to this country could have been avoided if Bill Clinton was not term limited out?

Not much. Economy was already tanking under Bill and the majoirty of the planning for 9-11 took place under his nose meaning that would have gone off without a hitch. He signed the bill loosening lending restrictions which means the housing bubble wouldnt have been averted. What is on the table is Afghanistan and Iraq. I see him going into Afghanistan, not so much Iraq.

That's a lot of damage avoided even under your BS assertions.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: senseamp
how much damage to this country could have been avoided if Bill Clinton was not term limited out?

That's right! We could have seen Lewinski part 2 or maybe even part 4. And might as well convert the West wing as a porno studio! And probably 9/11 would have not happen instead it'll be a nuke attack in NY; instead of the USS Cole it would have been a nuke sub or carrier. Give me us break!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
how much damage to this country could have been avoided if Bill Clinton was not term limited out?

Not much. Economy was already tanking under Bill and the majoirty of the planning for 9-11 took place under his nose meaning that would have gone off without a hitch. He signed the bill loosening lending restrictions which means the housing bubble wouldnt have been averted. What is on the table is Afghanistan and Iraq. I see him going into Afghanistan, not so much Iraq.

That's a lot of damage avoided even under your BS assertions.

With Bill at the helm...everything would have been just peachy. :roll:

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: senseamp
how much damage to this country could have been avoided if Bill Clinton was not term limited out?

Double edged sword, someone like Bush could be president for decades.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
how much damage to this country could have been avoided if Bill Clinton was not term limited out?

Not much. Economy was already tanking under Bill and the majoirty of the planning for 9-11 took place under his nose meaning that would have gone off without a hitch. He signed the bill loosening lending restrictions which means the housing bubble wouldnt have been averted. What is on the table is Afghanistan and Iraq. I see him going into Afghanistan, not so much Iraq.

That's a lot of damage avoided even under your BS assertions.

If there had not been an Iraq war, the housing bubble would likely have burst sooner. Clinton would have been on the receiving end of that instead of Bush and the economy would be blamed on him.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
how much damage to this country could have been avoided if Bill Clinton was not term limited out?

Not much. Economy was already tanking under Bill and the majoirty of the planning for 9-11 took place under his nose meaning that would have gone off without a hitch. He signed the bill loosening lending restrictions which means the housing bubble wouldnt have been averted. What is on the table is Afghanistan and Iraq. I see him going into Afghanistan, not so much Iraq.

That's a lot of damage avoided even under your BS assertions.

What damage would be avoided? The recession of 01, 9-11, and the housing bubble along with an invasion of Afghanistan would have happened. Were you trying to imply everything would be picture perfect if Bill was elected to a 3rd and 4th term? Keep dreaming. Many of the problems of today were set in motion well before today.

 

[Leon]

how much damage to this country could have been avoided if Bill Clinton was not term limited out?

Sorry, Clinton wouldn't even be president - it would be Reagan 4th term then

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
The poor will vote for government handouts...true in Venezuela...true in the US...so easily manipulated.

Yes. One good reason we should have term limits - to provide a check and balance to the demands of the masses. Except for the judiciary which should be a lifetime appointment to avoid political influence and check teh power of the legislative and executive branches.

Wow could you be any more elitist?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
The poor will vote for government handouts...true in Venezuela...true in the US...so easily manipulated.

Yes. One good reason we should have term limits - to provide a check and balance to the demands of the masses. Except for the judiciary which should be a lifetime appointment to avoid political influence and check teh power of the legislative and executive branches.

Wow could you be any more elitist?

Ask the middle class in Venezuela.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
how much damage to this country could have been avoided if Bill Clinton was not term limited out?

Not much. Economy was already tanking under Bill and the majoirty of the planning for 9-11 took place under his nose meaning that would have gone off without a hitch. He signed the bill loosening lending restrictions which means the housing bubble wouldnt have been averted. What is on the table is Afghanistan and Iraq. I see him going into Afghanistan, not so much Iraq.

That's a lot of damage avoided even under your BS assertions.

What damage would be avoided? The recession of 01, 9-11, and the housing bubble along with an invasion of Afghanistan would have happened. Were you trying to imply everything would be picture perfect if Bill was elected to a 3rd and 4th term? Keep dreaming. Many of the problems of today were set in motion well before today.

That's a pretty reasonable assessment. The biggest difference would have been the statesmanship that Clinton had. He wasn't quite up to Reagan or Kennedy's gold standard, but he was up there for sure, far above Bush I and II. Avoiding the Iraq boondoggle alone would have been priceless. People are right to bitch about this new stupid $1T+ spending fiasco, but it's just as right to call the countless billions ($1T+? nobody can say for sure with all the hidden spending) on the Iraq mess just as stupid.

In fact, in may even be dumber to have dumped that $$ in Iraq. At least $$ domestically spent has some chance of recirculation in business and consumer spending, whereas very little of the fortune we've spent in Iraq will come back to us (outside of sweetheart contract deals and certain influential megacorp execs bonuses of course).

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
In fact, in may even be dumber to have dumped that $$ in Iraq. At least $$ domestically spent has some chance of recirculation in business and consumer spending, whereas very little of the fortune we've spent in Iraq will come back to us (outside of sweetheart contract deals and certain influential megacorp execs bonuses of course).

The vast majority of money we spent on Iraq wasn't actually spent IN Iraq. The vast majority of the money went to US companies and persons for weapons, ammo, vehicles, support contracts, military salaries, etc.

 

[Triumph]

I see term limits as a check on government. Need to clean out the dead wood like your Kennedy's and your Strom Thurmonds. The excuse people often give for having career politicians is that they "know how the government works." Why is that a reason? The government doesn't work, why keep the people in office who perpetuate this cycle? What they really mean is that senior Congressman know how to work with lobbyists to obtain funding for their re-election.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Arkaign
In fact, in may even be dumber to have dumped that $$ in Iraq. At least $$ domestically spent has some chance of recirculation in business and consumer spending, whereas very little of the fortune we've spent in Iraq will come back to us (outside of sweetheart contract deals and certain influential megacorp execs bonuses of course).

The vast majority of money we spent on Iraq wasn't actually spent IN Iraq. The vast majority of the money went to US companies and persons for weapons, ammo, vehicles, support contracts, military salaries, etc.

Interesting, do you have any links I can peruse about that? Would like to know more. The last I had heard, tons of money was sunk in bases/infrastructure/fortress embassy, and so on. Which aren't exactly worthless, but still I don't think the bill is worth it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Arkaign
In fact, in may even be dumber to have dumped that $$ in Iraq. At least $$ domestically spent has some chance of recirculation in business and consumer spending, whereas very little of the fortune we've spent in Iraq will come back to us (outside of sweetheart contract deals and certain influential megacorp execs bonuses of course).

The vast majority of money we spent on Iraq wasn't actually spent IN Iraq. The vast majority of the money went to US companies and persons for weapons, ammo, vehicles, support contracts, military salaries, etc.

Interesting, do you have any links I can peruse about that? Would like to know more. The last I had heard, tons of money was sunk in bases/infrastructure/fortress embassy, and so on. Which aren't exactly worthless, but still I don't think the bill is worth it.

Links? I have exactly as many links as you provided to support your contention in the first place.



I can prove my claim via a quick math exercise, though. We can estimate, very conservatively, that, on average, it costs $3K/ month per military member to maintain our forces in Iraq. That figures includes salary and the supporting costs. Anyone that actually does the accounting will understand that the costs are actually way higher, but humor me on this very low end. Now multiply that cost per month x 130,000 (an average number of US soldiers in Iraq over the term of the war and occupation), then multiply that by the number of months we have been in Iraq.

I'm low-balling here on salary and soldier support alone. That doesn't include non-mil contracts, military equipment, much of the logisitics, and military and non-military support and contracts here in the US. Compare those costs to how much we have actually spent in Iraq.

I think you know that already though and don't truly want to know more but would rather avoid addressing this particular subject much further.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Leon

how much damage to this country could have been avoided if Bill Clinton was not term limited out?

Sorry, Clinton wouldn't even be president - it would be Reagan 4th term then

I think that it is about time America elected a dead president. I can think no better candidate than Ronald Reagan.



/Lewis Black

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Why all this concern about Venezuela? Oh right, oil.

You are half right. Having a lot of oil has allowed Chavez to buy much of the lower and some of the middle classes. The other revenue he has used to expand the armed forces of Venezuela. I do not need to tell anyone about the current price of oil, but I will say that Venezuela's budget is based off of an oil price of 85 dollars a barrel. Their economy is no longer diversified -- it is heavily dependent on oil (whether it be a job at the state run oil company or other government job funded by oil revenues), so when oil is down they suffer -- big time. So, it is bad for the Venezuelan people.

There are some that worry that Chavez's big military buildup and a faltering economy might lead him to flex his muscle. After all... everyone knows that Fidel wanted to convert the entire Western Hemisphere to communism but the 800lb gorilla to his North stopped (by using horribly flawed policies). So, to that extent, it is bad for his neighbors. Personally, I care because the country is turning into a shithole and we should always feel bad for such a thing to happen.

I will add one last thing... anyone who thinks this election was "democratic" or fair is downright insane. If voters were not bought off they were intimidated at the very least. Who knows if the election was fair or not?

 

[kylebisme]

I don't know much about Venezuela, but I do know that proof by assertion is insane, as is questioning a claim directly after making it. Calling an referendum an "election" doesn't demonstrate a firm grip on reality either.

 

[Steeplerot]

I think this is pretty disappointing, on the whole I think the newest Bolivarian Revolution has helped, but will not be a legitimate peoples revolution unless given the test of the peoples will of carrying on what Chavez started themselves after he is gone.

Chavez will lose the sense of urgency and accountability to the very people who put him into power and made the revolution happen.

Maybe some are right when they say real revolution only comes from armed struggle and the ballot box is just another form of opium for the masses.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Arkaign
In fact, in may even be dumber to have dumped that $$ in Iraq. At least $$ domestically spent has some chance of recirculation in business and consumer spending, whereas very little of the fortune we've spent in Iraq will come back to us (outside of sweetheart contract deals and certain influential megacorp execs bonuses of course).

The vast majority of money we spent on Iraq wasn't actually spent IN Iraq. The vast majority of the money went to US companies and persons for weapons, ammo, vehicles, support contracts, military salaries, etc.

Interesting, do you have any links I can peruse about that? Would like to know more. The last I had heard, tons of money was sunk in bases/infrastructure/fortress embassy, and so on. Which aren't exactly worthless, but still I don't think the bill is worth it.

Even if the money was spent on ammo, those bullets and bombs were used up to destroy things anyway. Pretty much no matter how you look at the Iraq war it was a huge waste of money. I suppose you could look at it as $1 trillion to kill Saddam Hussein and impose a quasi-democracy onto an unwilling populace. Nothing of substance was gained for that $$$ spent on the war.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
I think this is pretty disappointing, on the whole I think the newest Bolivarian Revolution has helped, but will not be a legitimate peoples revolution unless given the test of the peoples will of carrying on what Chavez started themselves after he is gone.

Chavez will lose the sense of urgency and accountability to the very people who put him into power and made the revolution happen.

Maybe some are right when they say real revolution only comes from armed struggle and the ballot box is just another form of opium for the masses.

I do give Chavez credit for the good he has done, but I fear that his 'cult of personality' will be detrimental after Chavez is gone (democratically or otherwise) as his movement would fall apart and leave Venezuela with a power vacuum. Term limits here would be a failsafe.

On another note, how do you feel about this being called a 'Bolivarian Revolution'? Does it really embody the ideals of Bolivar himself, or does it dilute his legacy?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I don't know much about Venezuela, but I do know that proof by assertion is insane, as is questioning a claim directly after making it. Calling an referendum an "election" doesn't demonstrate a firm grip on reality either.

You should probably read a dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/election
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Referendum
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/Referendum

Is everyone left on AT P&N as much of a dumbass as you are?

Oh, and I am sure what you do not know about Venezuela isn't what precludes you from making a decent post.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Even if the money was spent on ammo, those bullets and bombs were used up to destroy things anyway. Pretty much no matter how you look at the Iraq war it was a huge waste of money. I suppose you could look at it as $1 trillion to kill Saddam Hussein and impose a quasi-democracy onto an unwilling populace. Nothing of substance was gained for that $$$ spent on the war.

It was a windfall from the perspective of the people who run and/or are invested heavily in building those bullets and bombs, and pumping the oil, and everything else.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Even if the money was spent on ammo, those bullets and bombs were used up to destroy things anyway. Pretty much no matter how you look at the Iraq war it was a huge waste of money. I suppose you could look at it as $1 trillion to kill Saddam Hussein and impose a quasi-democracy onto an unwilling populace. Nothing of substance was gained for that $$$ spent on the war.

It was a windfall from the perspective of the people who run and/or are invested heavily in building those bullets and bombs, and pumping the oil, and everything else.

Yeah and I hope they burn in hell.