what is wrong with Hugo Chaves?

[MAW1082]

The democratically elected presidents of the United States and Venezuela have incompatible idelogies.

United States - Supports the free market and the multinational institutions that support international capitalism like the IMF and WTO.

Venezuela - Supports redistribution of wealth and the destruction of international capitalism and institutions like the IMF and WTO.

It's the classic Capitalism vs. Socialism clash of civilizations.

Also see other wars started in Central and South America by the United States like Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Haiti . . .

It all comes down to one thing: Freedom. Everyone in the world has the freedom to obey the United States, but only 'evil tyrants' have the liberty to oppose.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
He is at odds with the Bush Administration and he is in control of Venzeula's vast oil reserves.... just like Sadam was before we invaded Iraq.

Its funny....all week long I've been told by liberals how we aren't really all that reliant on Middle Eastern oil...so like, you know, Bush's SOTU speech was merely lip service to a bunch of know-nothing morons........

So anyway.....whom is the largest importer of oil to the US?

I guess the real question is, why haven't we invaded them? I mean, we went to war with Iraq to steal their oil (twice now IIRC) and yet we haven't actually stolen any......WTF? Where's my cheap oil I was promised personally by Bush and the "no blood for oil" folks? Damn, all we'd have to do is take out their tank and it would be all ours....Text

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
He is at odds with the Bush Administration and he is in control of Venzeula's vast oil reserves.... just like Sadam was before we invaded Iraq.

Its funny....all week long I've been told by liberals how we aren't really all that reliant on Middle Eastern oil...so like, you know, Bush's SOTU speech was merely lip service to a bunch of know-nothing morons........

So anyway.....whom is the largest importer of oil to the US?

I guess the real question is, why haven't we invaded them? I mean, we went to war with Iraq to steal their oil (twice now IIRC) and yet we haven't actually stolen any......WTF? Where's my cheap oil I was promised personally by Bush and the "no blood for oil" folks? Damn, all we'd have to do is take out their tank and it would be all ours....Text

That's pretty shortsighted. It's not like we went to Iraq and are carrying out barrels of oil. When people argue that we went to Iraq for oil, what they generally mean is that we went to Iraq to install a new government that would allow the 'firendly' oil companies in the United States a new opportunity.

It's not like the US is pumping oil out of Iraq and directly into it reserve or anything. You have to stand back to see the picture. When you're too close, you can't see it.

 

[JS80]

Why don't all you socialist lovers move to Venezuela to live under Chavez rule? You guys are nothing but hypocrites.

 

[oldman420]

Originally posted by: JS80
Why don't all you socialist lovers move to Venezuela to live under Chavez rule? You guys are nothing but hypocrites.

hmm an interesting comment to end it on.

Cant say that I find Chavez to be too bad.
To say the least he seems to be trying to do the right thing.
he and his country are in a dynamic and volatile state and indeed as do most rulers he has an ego.
cut rate oil is a way of slapping this administration in the face, like giving your kid a crack rock while you watch helplessly knowing you got them started.
I find it interesting that we continue to trash this leader on one hand while sucking up for oil on the other hand,,correct me if i am wrong but is not that the very definition of hypocrisy?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: oldman420

Originally posted by: JS80
Why don't all you socialist lovers move to Venezuela to live under Chavez rule? You guys are nothing but hypocrites.

hmm an interesting comment to end it on.

Cant say that I find Chavez to be too bad.
To say the least he seems to be trying to do the right thing.
he and his country are in a dynamic and volatile state and indeed as do most rulers he has an ego.
cut rate oil is a way of slapping this administration in the face, like giving your kid a crack rock while you watch helplessly knowing you got them started.
I find it interesting that we continue to trash this leader on one hand while sucking up for oil on the other hand,,correct me if i am wrong but is not that the very definition of hypocrisy?

Didn't bother to read the article either, did ya.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: oldman420

Originally posted by: JS80
Why don't all you socialist lovers move to Venezuela to live under Chavez rule? You guys are nothing but hypocrites.

hmm an interesting comment to end it on.

Cant say that I find Chavez to be too bad.
To say the least he seems to be trying to do the right thing.
he and his country are in a dynamic and volatile state and indeed as do most rulers he has an ego.
cut rate oil is a way of slapping this administration in the face, like giving your kid a crack rock while you watch helplessly knowing you got them started.
I find it interesting that we continue to trash this leader on one hand while sucking up for oil on the other hand,,correct me if i am wrong but is not that the very definition of hypocrisy?

Didn't bother to read the article either, did ya.

Didn't bother to read the rebuttal either, did ya.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: JS80
Why don't all you socialist lovers move to Venezuela to live under Chavez rule? You guys are nothing but hypocrites.

I don't speak Spanish, that's why!

And what was with the comment of saying that socialism and fascism are closely related whoever said that? They're on opposite sides of the economic policital spectrum. Seeing as in fascism money is state owned and controlled and in socialism money is distributed among the people. Capitalistic economies are actually closely related to fascism seeing as how the rich control the government.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: JS80
Why don't all you socialist lovers move to Venezuela to live under Chavez rule? You guys are nothing but hypocrites.

I don't speak Spanish, that's why!

And what was with the comment of saying that socialism and fascism are closely related whoever said that? They're on opposite sides of the economic policital spectrum. Seeing as in fascism money is state owned and controlled and in socialism money is distributed among the people. Capitalistic economies are actually closely related to fascism seeing as how the rich control the government.

This is completely wrong. Fascism is a collectivism like socialism. Capitalism is not a collectivism, it is an individualism.

Money is state-owned in socialism, but not in fascism. In socialism, there is NO difference between the state and the people. The state is people and everything is collectively owned by the state. In fascism, that state claims not to own the people, but meanwhile it strictly controls the people, along with all their business and property. In capitalism, the people own and control the state, individually.
It appears to me by your last statement that what you are confusing as capitalism is actually corporatism, which is the dominant political-economic structure in the US today (thanks primarily to the Roosevelt cousins). Corporatism is not capitalism, as it is anathema to the free markets (particularly free market entry) that is the very basis of capitalism. Corporatism is also another collectivism.
I don't know who brainwashes you people, but I suggest you educate yourself. Why don't you trying starting here and doing searches under all the -isms I used here?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: oldman420

Originally posted by: JS80
Why don't all you socialist lovers move to Venezuela to live under Chavez rule? You guys are nothing but hypocrites.

hmm an interesting comment to end it on.

Cant say that I find Chavez to be too bad.
To say the least he seems to be trying to do the right thing.
he and his country are in a dynamic and volatile state and indeed as do most rulers he has an ego.
cut rate oil is a way of slapping this administration in the face, like giving your kid a crack rock while you watch helplessly knowing you got them started.
I find it interesting that we continue to trash this leader on one hand while sucking up for oil on the other hand,,correct me if i am wrong but is not that the very definition of hypocrisy?

Didn't bother to read the article either, did ya.

Didn't bother to read the rebuttal either, did ya.

Was I quoting you? Go adjust your tinfoil.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: JS80
Why don't all you socialist lovers move to Venezuela to live under Chavez rule? You guys are nothing but hypocrites.

I don't speak Spanish, that's why!

And what was with the comment of saying that socialism and fascism are closely related whoever said that? They're on opposite sides of the economic policital spectrum. Seeing as in fascism money is state owned and controlled and in socialism money is distributed among the people. Capitalistic economies are actually closely related to fascism seeing as how the rich control the government.

This is completely wrong. Fascism is a collectivism like socialism. Capitalism is not a collectivism, it is an individualism.

Money is state-owned in socialism, but not in fascism. In socialism, there is NO difference between the state and the people. The state is people and everything is collectively owned by the state. In fascism, that state claims not to own the people, but meanwhile it strictly controls the people, along with all their business and property. In capitalism, the people own and control the state, individually.
It appears to me by your last statement that what you are confusing as capitalism is actually corporatism, which is the dominant political-economic structure in the US today (thanks primarily to the Roosevelt cousins). Corporatism is not capitalism, as it is anathema to the free markets (particularly free market entry) that is the very basis of capitalism. Corporatism is also another collectivism.
I don't know who brainwashes you people, but I suggest you educate yourself. Why don't you trying starting here and doing searches under all the -isms I used here?

Please stop talking about fantasy land capitalism as if it were the real capitalism! Real capitalism is corporatism. Look around you! That is called the real World. Will you ever grow up and deal with it? Capitalism is in essence a corrupt authoritarian unfair mess.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jmman
The thing that scares me is that I have family that lives there, and from talking to them, it seems as if people who disagree with Chavez are starting to "disappear". Reminds me of the Soviet Union or something. Don't get sucked in with his PR campaign about schools and such.

Gee you dont say. Think I have been harping about this resembling eastern europe post WWII for some time now.

But all is well in this country according to the left. A regular old Utopia.

 

[rahvin]

The class envy in this thread is amazing. The guy that wants to steal the wealth from everyone else claims everyone else is the authoritarian. Great case of doublespeak.

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jmman
The thing that scares me is that I have family that lives there, and from talking to them, it seems as if people who disagree with Chavez are starting to "disappear". Reminds me of the Soviet Union or something. Don't get sucked in with his PR campaign about schools and such.

Gee you dont say. Think I have been harping about this resembling eastern europe post WWII for some time now.

But all is well in this country according to the left. A regular old Utopia.

Bullsh!t.

The corporate media in Venezuela have put forth a concerted effort to portray Chavez and his supporters as leftist thugs.

Look at what happened during the coup attempt. The corporate media showed images of Chavez supporters shooting over a bridge. These pictures caused a huge uproar and later that day the military overthrew Chavez with the help of the corporate media. The corporate media (all the media in Venezuela othe than the state owned channel 8) didn't show any news of the coup while it was happening, in order to keep Chavez supporters in the dark and helpless. After Chavez was removed, the coprorate media conveniently decided to hold interviews with the military officials responsible for the coup. Predictably, hosts of the television shows completely agreed with the military officials in that Chavez needed to be removed.

Later, it was revealed that the pictures of Chavez supporters shooting over a bridge were actually shooting at a building hundreds of yards away where sniper fire was coming from. In the unedited video, it is easy to see many Chavez supporters on the ground and bleeding from the sniper fire while other supporters were feebly shooting back with small handguns.

Sure, now it is a little different. Chavez had to put these corporate media under his control for his own protection and to protect his democratically elected government.

In response to your comment about schools, you are absolutely wrong. You will be able to come up with a few examples of declining education for the economic elite class; however, the vast majority of the population is most definitely beneffiting from the social programs of Chavez.

 

[jrenz]

Sure, now it is a little different. Chavez had to put these corporate media under his control for his own protection and to protect his democratically elected government.

This sounds like the type of claim I hear all the time here about what Bush is trying to do. I guess it's alright though, because Chavez isn't Bush.

 

[Genx87]

Sure, now it is a little different. Chavez had to put these corporate media under his control for his own protection and to protect his democratically elected government.

lmao think about what you just said and get back to us.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion and MAW1082
WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

:laugh:

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion and MAW1082
WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

:laugh:

What did you just read 1984 or something?

Exactly what are you referring to?

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Sure, now it is a little different. Chavez had to put these corporate media under his control for his own protection and to protect his democratically elected government.

This sounds like the type of claim I hear all the time here about what Bush is trying to do. I guess it's alright though, because Chavez isn't Bush.

If you want to get into a long discussion about the corporate media and the ambitions of its owners then we can have a discussion about that . . . start up a thread . . .

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MAW1082

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion and MAW1082
WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

:laugh:

What did you just read 1984 or something?

Exactly what are you referring to?

Heh. The 2 of you are living proof that Orwell was right. I'm laughing my head off here.

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: MAW1082

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion and MAW1082
WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

:laugh:

What did you just read 1984 or something?

Exactly what are you referring to?

Heh. The 2 of you are living proof that Orwell was right. I'm laughing my head off here.

What are you even referring to? It's a quote from 1984. It's meant to be contradictory.

From the look of your signature and the second quote, we're not going to able to have a meaningful conversation. You are a disciple of Ayn Rand and her radical 'freedom' theories. You are with Bush and his "you're either for us or against us" rhetoric.

The world isn't that simple. Everything isn't Black or White.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
What are you even referring to? It's a quote from 1984. It's meant to be contradictory.

From the look of your signature and the second quote, we're not going to able to have a meaningful conversation. You are a disciple of Ayn Rand and her radical 'freedom' theories. You are with Bush and his "you're either for us or against us" rhetoric.

The world isn't that simple. Everything isn't Black or White.

HAHAHA!! I post Paine and Heinlein quotes about respecting the freedom of others for the sake of your own freedom, and you proclaim that we won't be able to communicate, and suddenly I'm a Randite and a Bushite? You pretty much proved my point right there, commie. Your viewpoints are all inverted, as they always are in authoritarian commies. It comes from thinking that the only way to acheive freedom for one group is to steal it from another. Read between your own lines and it was YOU who just said that I had was either for you or against you, that it was black and white, not I. Walk to a mirror and take a long look in it.

"Viva Chavez! La muerte a puercos capitalistas!"


edit: btw, the full Heinlein quote is as follows:
"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surely curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."

 

[Genx87]

I dont know what is more funny, the fact he called you a Bushie Vic, or the fact he claims the world isnt black and white and very simple, yet in a very simplistic move labeled you a Bushie lmao.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont know what is more funny, the fact he called you a Bushie Vic, or the fact he claims the world isnt black and white and very simple, yet in a very simplistic move labeled you a Bushie lmao.

Hehehehe... "you're either for us or against us, Bushie!"




Even more funny is that he appears to think that Rand and Bush are similar in political viewpoint. As if. Bush is a pure democratic corporatist (aka the power of thugs with money). Rand was a pure laissez-faire capitalist with a rather low opinion of democracy. I admit that I favor Rand more than Bush, but I have a much higher opinion of people in general than Rand did.

 

[MAW1082]

"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert Heinlein

That's what I am talking about. You are going to degrade everything into 'Freedom vs. Control'

This is not how the world works. There's more than just freedom and control, especially when you're dealing with multi dimensional issues.