quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt you know..my response was a mistake...I was viewing page 2 of the forum and thought it was page one...so you didnt actually bump this thread, and I did...f*ck!!! Chavez is an idiot, but I don't care about him, and very few people in America give a shit about what he does in his country. If the people of Venezuela allow him to consolidate power and become a dictator, that is their problem. You seem to have the idea stuck in your head that millions of Americans are aware of Chavez and "out to get him" in some way. The truth is we couldn't care less. We do however tend to root for free markets and more openness and checks & balances within government. Since Chavez is clamping down on those things, it would be nice if he gets overthrown...certainly good entertainment. But even if he stays in power, like I said..we don't care.

Well I refer mainly to the American government when I say America is "out to get him". There is a concerted effort by the American government to portray Chavez as an undemocratic dictator, solely, imo, because he nationalised the oil industry meaning petro dollars that previously lined the pockets of American oil companies and the richest few individuals in Venezuela are now being spent on social programmes for Venezuela's poorest.

And you are wrong to say Chavez is "clamping down" on "checks and balances" in government. There is the Presidency and the Parliament - the traditional check and balance style government. It just so happens that a combination of Chavez's popularity and the opposition boycott of the Parliamentary elections mean both institutions are pro-Chavez. It is no different to if a Republican was president of America and the Republicans won an absolute majority (whatever numbers are needed for that) in Congress. Chavez has never strayed from the democratic path whatever you think of his economic policies...

(And no you didn't bump the page, I did with the London buses story. I was considering starting a new thread but thought this is effectively the general Venezuela/Chavez thread)

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Chavez is an idiot, but I don't care about him, and very few people in America give a shit about what he does in his country. If the people of Venezuela allow him to consolidate power and become a dictator, that is their problem. You seem to have the idea stuck in your head that millions of Americans are aware of Chavez and "out to get him" in some way. The truth is we couldn't care less. We do however tend to root for free markets and more openness and checks & balances within government. Since Chavez is clamping down on those things, it would be nice if he gets overthrown...certainly good entertainment. But even if he stays in power, like I said..we don't care.

I would like to add my 2 cents while I am cruising at 420 ft


what capitalzt states is true....to a point.

America is concerned.... but not really..... its a poor fault of the american but we are the HDD/ADD kids on the block..... but we, from time to time seem to care......but then paris hilton gets fucked in low light and our attention pans. its pretty fucked up if you ask me and it makes me ashamed that there are other americans with that attitude.. it really does.... a any fan of History needs not to be a PhD to see that every thing Hugo has done to this day is leading up to a dictatorship. anyone with half a brain can see that. he has used the cloak of socialism to hide... and there are shits loads of people that has fallen for it.

thats all I got to say about that......I need to head back up to 420 ft


p.s. that attitude is no one here on the boards..... just being a poster on PDD shows that we are not like the rest of the sheep ...

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX I would like to add my 2 cents while I am cruising at 420 ft what capitalzt states is true....to a point. America is concerned.... but not really..... its a poor fault of the american but we are the HDD/ADD kids on the block..... but we, from time to time seem to care......but then paris hilton gets fucked in low light and our attention pans. its pretty fucked up if you ask me and it makes me ashamed that there are other americans with that attitude.. it really does.... a any fan of History needs not to be a PhD to see that every thing Hugo has done to this day is leading up to a dictatorship. anyone with half a brain can see that. he has used the cloak of socialism to hide... and there are shits loads of people that has fallen for it. thats all I got to say about that......I need to head back up to 420 ft p.s. that attitude is no one here on the boards..... just being a poster on PDD shows that we are not like the rest of the sheep ...

You stoner

Fine then, while we're all venting, I'll say that if this is what the Venezuelans want, then so be it. They'll get what they ask for. Fuck 'em (even though the more intelligent/sensible ones seem to have a clue what's going on). I think we've all been calling a spade a spade but some can't seem to see the forest for the trees. All I know is that when Hugo bankrupts his country or does something awful, there will be cries for rich greedy capitalistic powerful America to come save their ass, though America will be called out for going in after their oil. Damned if we do, damned if we don't, but it's pretty fucking obvious which way he's steering that country. I'm sorry...HIS country, right???

The problem is Shakka, if Chavez is a dictator, what is the solution if the people vote for him?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The problem is Shakka, if Chavez is a dictator, what is the solution if the people vote for him?

I guess one possible answer is, it's not my fucking problem. Usually dictatorships end in violent revolt. Maybe that'll be the solution, but who knows how long it could take.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I guess one possible answer is, it's not my fucking problem. Usually dictatorships end in violent revolt. Maybe that'll be the solution, but who knows how long it could take.

Well that certainly is one solution!

The contradiction is that you're opposing someone you consider to be a dictator but, presumably, you support his ousting from power. But what are democractic leaders replaced with when they are ousted from power? Dictators.

So the contradiction the anti-Chavez lot have is that they supposedly oppose a dictatorship, yet the only possible alternative is to replace it with another dictatorship (only this time, one opposed to the will of the people!)

I disagree with a hell of a lot of economic policies of right wing governments (like the Conservatives in the UK, or both parties in the USA), but whilst ever the people have the right to vote for the party they want to lead them, then it is a democracy, whether you agree or not...democracy (as far as the definition extends to our version of democracy) is rule by the majority, which means there will always be a minority opposed to that government.

There will always be people opposed to Chavez's economic policies but he is not, by definition, a dictator until he abandons the democratic process (something the Venezuelan opposition have alread done - a dictatorship in the waiting?). If his policies fail, if the country ends up in ruins, then its sad but it would not have been the work of a dictator...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Socialism = economic equality = equality of opportunities There is NO equality of opportunity under capitalism Do you not understand that in a capitalist society, the more wealth you have the more opportunities you have. As capitalism requires an unequal distribution of wealth, that equates into an unequal distribution of equality. Economic freedom does not, and never will, lead to equal opportunities (economic equality). Economic freedom means individuals are allowed to consolidate wealth at the expense of other individuals in society. This gives the wealthier individuals more opportunities in life than those with less wealth. Socialist polices aim to offset that phenomena by redistributing wealth more evenly (yes, through taxation) so that those less wealthy individuals can still have the same amount of opportunities as those at the weathiest echlons of society. For example, education standards at state schools will be as high as at private schools. Under capitalism, if a rich person and a poor person need a kidney transplant, the rich person will get one because they can afford it. Under free health care they both get a kidney transplant because they both have equal opportnities...

Did you ever stop to think that people don't deserve to be all equal?
For example, why should a hard working small business owner have to pony up for the sloth that doesn't contribute to society at all?
How exactly is that, 'fair'?

In a text-book-Star Trekkie-Utopia, socailism sounds great, however human nature just doesn't work that way.

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Did you ever stop to think that people don't deserve to be all equal? For example, why should a hard working small business owner have to pony up for the sloth that doesn't contribute to society at all? How exactly is that, 'fair'? In a text-book-Star Trekkie-Utopia, socailism sounds great, however human nature just doesn't work that way.

I guess you're referring to what others have called "equality of outcome". That's not what I'm arguing for at all. I'm arguing that in our society, to a fair extent, the richer you are the more opportunities and privaliges you have. I don't think that wealth should be a factor whatsoever in access to opportunities or vital services, and my economic beliefs aim to offset this inequality.

But that doesn't mean everyone will be equal. It doesn't mean everyone will be paid the same or prohibited from innovation, entrepenuership of earning more money than everyone else through merit. All it means is that everyone has the same opportunities and wealth should not be a factor when accessing vital services such as health or education (which I believe society has a duty to provide to all)

Of course there are people that are lazy and take advantage of social security - that cannot be helped. But the fact is the majority of people who are forced to claim benefits are very likely to be undereducated and stuck in a rut.

If you give everyone the same opportunities then it's then up to them to make the most of it...but as it stands now, you need wealth to access all opportunities and capitalist societies dictate that wealth is concentrated with the few meaning the rest do not have the same opportunities

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r In a text-book-Star Trekkie-Utopia, socailism sounds great, however human nature just doesn't work that way.

And you have not once listened when I say I do not support communism. I support social democracy, so until you get that through your head, and stop using arguments against communism to argue against my beliefs then you're gonna get nowhere in this debate.

Stop creating arguments in your head to argue against and please just listen to what I tell you I believe in...

Does this give anyone else the warm fuzzies?

I win!