Venezuela and Freedom of Speech.

IVNORD wrote:     I don't buy this conspiracy theory. It would be unreasonably expensive to stage 9/11, the two ensuing wars (especially Iraq) are a drag on the economy. Too irrational for the big money.  I on the other hand think this conspiracy is much more than plausible. What would be the raeson for it? to aggravate the US population to support the war with Afghanistan? >> no  the real goal would be/is  Iraq and its oil reserves (this is why the fabrication of proofs was already known before the US would prodce them), even if Afganistan was majorly important (because of the Talibans who were indeed the culprits by hiding Bin Laden), but also the US needed a pipiline from Kazakstan to Pakistan to avoid Iran.     No matter what the economists say, Quite the opposite. THe economists say a war is beneficial to the economy, don't listen to them. I say it's not as the economy produces predetermined waste (weapons). A short war may be ok but a protracted one is devastating. In its fifth year we are printing huge amounts of paper money to pay for it. That's the inflation, that's why oil prices shot through the roof, not because of greed of some mystical speculators but because the dollar loses its value by the minute.  >> The US never counted on a slow war!!! They are always so sure of their weaponry that they forget the people are fighting wars. Had Bush ever thought the Iraq war would still happen today, never would the neo-cons gone there. Their goals are backfiring on them.  BTW increasing Oils Prices are benefitting the oil companies. They have never made bigger profits since the Iraq war.     the arms/weapons industry is always pushing for war. If there was none, they'd stop selling weapons. THey always have government arms procurement not to go hungry. They sure love to produce more of it, but it's just one sector benefiting from it. And only to some extent, as inflation eventually sticks its teeth in their money too. A big war always triggers a tremendous rise in inflation. Look at WW II and Vietnam. The sector is an incredible share of the US economy It's big but not as big as you're trying to portray it.>>> you forget the undeclared subcontractors producing electronics modules without even knowing what's their uses. If Lockheed was to close down(bankrupcy)  and lose 1000 jobs (for ex), there would be another 2500 job losses (still an example) directly related to it.    and a great consumer of petrol. Those military vehicules are not concerned by pollution norms and have little to worry about any kind of legislation for ergonomy or environment laws >> they are absolved from this. It would be nice to implement emission standards for Abrams tanks. >> this is also why I am pessimist and not confident in the future. Even if all Chinese, Europeans, Americans, Indians, Russians citizens were to minimizez their impact on the environment, it suffices one industrial accident or one war to ruin all the efforts made by the public. And you know wars and accidents will happen more often.   No wonder I don't want kids to grow so how do you suppress their growth?  >> by not making any? That's a radical solution. And you call yourself a conservative? >> you sleazebag!!! BTW, conservatives want woen to make as many kids as possible!!!! Barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen!!!   For kids: You can also go through the Ayn Rand theories and make them equal by Hatchet, Axe and Saw (the trees)     I know I just switched to environmental issues, but the economy doesn't care more for nature than humans. It's a big problem. That was one of the reasons I voted for Gore in 2000. Although I doubt he could do anything anyway. Das Kapital at work.  >> I wasn't aware that Gore had talked of environment on 1999 campaign. Ithink he's just reconverted his poltical career to fill the environment void that US parties were avoiding.

 

Edited by Sean Trane - June 14 2007 at 08:16

debrewguy wrote: Saw an interesting documentary on Chavez last night on Radio Canada. As with their english sister channel CBC, they presented a very balanced view of the subject. The accusations of growing authoritariasm are very well explained by a Venezuelan commentator (sorry, didn't get his name). But they did include a Venezuelan family who are divided as to Chavez. As has been mentioned here, the main factor is the appeal to the poor that some of Chavez' policies, such as the Mercal stores. But they also spoke of the Tascan list (I hope I spelled Tascan correctly). According to the documentary, there is a list that has the name of some 4 million Venezuelan citizens who voted against Chavez. One person interviewed claimed that he was refused credit without any reason, only to find out later that his presence on this list was the single reason. As an admittedly non-expert person on this whole matter, I think it seems like Chavez wants to be the "enlightened" & "benefient" dictator. Whether Chavez actually is well meaning is hard to decipher from his actions re : censorship & centralizing power in his hands. I do hope for the best for this country's people, but history is only too full of people who meant well but eventually get corrupted by absolute power.

Saw an interesting documentary on Chavez last night on Radio Canada. As with their english sister channel CBC, they presented a very balanced view of the subject. The accusations of growing authoritariasm are very well explained by a Venezuelan commentator (sorry, didn't get his name). But they did include a Venezuelan family who are divided as to Chavez. As has been mentioned here, the main factor is the appeal to the poor that some of Chavez' policies, such as the Mercal stores. But they also spoke of the Tascan list (I hope I spelled Tascan correctly). According to the documentary, there is a list that has the name of some 4 million Venezuelan citizens who voted against Chavez. One person interviewed claimed that he was refused credit without any reason, only to find out later that his presence on this list was the single reason.
As an admittedly non-expert person on this whole matter, I think it seems like Chavez wants to be the "enlightened" & "benefient" dictator. Whether Chavez actually is well meaning is hard to decipher from his actions re : censorship & centralizing power in his hands. I do hope for the best for this country's people, but history is only too full of people who meant well but eventually get corrupted by absolute power.

Sean Trane wrote: IVNORD wrote:   In some weird way, we may (may!) be a role model, but we're rather viewed as the ugly servants (as much as I resent that, I can only choose not to vacation in Latin American countries any longer). >> the best way to help them is actually spending your money with them by avoiding international hotels (this is what they do in Dominican Republic >> they scare you to go out of the grounds so you can laze by the pool sipping over-priced pina coladas), you get to meet the people, if it interest you. It might give you guilt trips also, though!! It makes me depressed. I don't enjoy human suffering.   There will always more revolutions of that genre unless the sharing is more equitable. When the system discovered that sharing can be as profitable as the total robbery was before it, chances for extremely violent revolutions greatly diminished. But the sharing was made possible by the improved economy (as we've discussed it before). The trick of feeding a crowd with five breads and three fishes had been performed only once and never immitated again, as I'm sure you're well aware of. >> And it is complete fallacy too which is it? the trick or my trust in economy?   the Bush clan created Bin Laden and allowed them (his family) to escape the US on 10/11 Sometimes I feel like it too, but it was Clinton's fault in the first place.  >> You'd better watch Farenheit 911>> never did, never will. He's either a "sensationist" making money the way all media does, or, from what I've heard, someone with imposing views which I have plenty of my own to share with the world you'll be amazed really!! Michael Moore is probably the American I respect most.(bar the PA forum sparring partners of course you're very kind )   It was too coordinated and well planned to be a dealing of a small group of amateurs >> indeed the puppet regime of Saddam was completely incapable of organizing this. you lucid rascal!  you know what I meant. Chances are some intelligence service (Iraqi?>> small modification here... Saudi?>> they're well introduced and trusted through the Bush clan) I don't buy this conspiracy theory. It would be unreasonably expensive to stage 9/11, the two ensuing wars (especially Iraq) are a drag on the economy. Too irrational for the big money.      Not that simple. US presidents are puppets of the big money. Whatever they do, must get a prior approval. Whenever they try to do something unacceptable for the system (like Clinton) they take a beating >> ever wonder why Monica did not get that (expensive) dress cleaned from his cum, if it was not to blackmail him? >> she was sent by the Republicans. >> the entire 106th congress should have been collectively executed by firing squad on the steps of the Capitol for the idiotic impeachment show. If he wasn't so vain I would have had some respect for the man.  But then it wouldn't be him. Because of his vanity he did so much harm.     I hardly profit from it, but I am a recipient.  >> not muchg to add here. We (you & I) contribute, but not profit from it, crumbs falling from the table is being a recipient. No wonder I don't want kids to grow so how do you suppress their growth? ; as to avoid having them live in such a screwed up world. On a serious note, that's all you have in life - the continuity of life. Just try to explain to them what your stand is. The problem is that my pragmatic stand may be more viable than your idealistic one. Easier to explain too

IVNORD wrote:      Well I am being a bit sarcastic of myself because I precisely avoid acting and living like a bourgeois, you may be kidding yourself  >> Actually someone from the third world would probably agree with that, but I think I am pretty lucid about where I stand in the ballgame >> just on the fringe of the playground, but I prefer that than being up in the last row of the granstand seats.   but compared to the world population, I must estimate my standard of living to be among the top 20%. I was refferring to myself fighting the revolution from my computer in my living room while listening to prog music.  definetely kidding yourself  >> which is why I was humouring about being a bourgeois. >>> "les révolutionaires de salon" >> which would translate roughly in sport jargon as: couch potato MVP and coach of the year.      but my everyday combat to drive to a more equal world (no matter of insignificant it may be) is making me a bit more at peace with myself that's the only benefit here - making peace with your conscience, the rest is in vain >> well being able to sleep with yourself at standing your own stare in the mirror while shaving (twice a week max) is rather important in how one thinks of himself. I've seen so many progheads with defeatist/loser self image, that I wonder how they've not committed suicide.   rather than plain admitting that I contribute and enforce the ugly machine, without trying to steer it as much as I can. If you're alluding to me, I've already admitted it although I contribute to it unwillingly, the same way as you do. Not only am I contributing unwillingly, but I'm trying to to steer it a bit (as much as I can without actually getting my shirt too wet) in this, even if as I said, it's most likely a losing battle.    And whenever they re-build (lose the elections) the crooked machine gets even worse as they become more hypocritical trying to win the next elections. >> the idea of rebuilding is expelling the "fauteur de troubles" from the party, getting new people in. >> In no way is this battle won, I doubt of the outcome and even doubt of their real will to do something about it, but to gain credibility back, they'll have to do something other than lie or cheat.   we appear either the role model for the poor (feeding the ugly machine) wanting to better their standard of living, or the ugly servants to the that ugly machine they are fighting because it oppresses them. We are at the through  >> I suppose you meant : "trough". Even though we get scraps and crumbles from the master's table, it's more than Nothing the poor get from them.   In some weird way, we may (may!) be a role model, but we're rather viewed as the ugly servants (as much as I resent that, I can only choose not to vacation in Latin American countries any longer). >> the best way to help them is actually spending your money with them by avoiding international hotels (this is what they do in Dominican Republic >> they scare you to go out of the grounds so you can laze by the pool sipping over-priced pina coladas), you get to meet the people, if it interest you. It might give you guilt trips also, though!!   That is another, though minor, factor in my resignation to fight the system - people are never thankful due to envy and misunderstanding. But I truly believe it will come to them in time when the economy grants it. This is the main factor of not fighting.   There will always more revolutions of that genre unless the sharing is more equitable. When the system discovered that sharing can be as profitable as the total robbery was before it, chances for extremely violent revolutions greatly diminished. But the sharing was made possible by the improved economy (as we've discussed it before). The trick of feeding a crowd with five breads and three fishes had been performed only once and never immitated again, as I'm sure you're well aware of. >> And it is complete fallacy too    Well we will need luck, and I think mine is a losing battle This is fatalism>> This is lucidity ultimately greed will always be stronger. This is pragmatism >> this is fatalism. Doesn't mean we don't have to fight it, though! This is idealism. >> Yup You're a man of many means >> if only they were financial rather than ideals >> ooops I'd probably become one of those uglies at the top of the pyramid     >> those famous boat people. I don't know much about the stages of the Cuban immigration, but there are lots of decent Cubans here. >> indeed there are few sane apples in that rotten bushell   the Bush clan created Bin Laden and allowed them (his family) to escape the US on 10/11 Sometimes I feel like it too, but it was Clinton's fault in the first place.  >> You'd better watch Farenheit 911>> you'll be amazed really!! Michael Moore is probably the American I respect most.(bar the PA forum sparring partners of course)   It was too coordinated and well planned to be a dealing of a small group of amateurs >> indeed the puppet regime of Saddam was completely incapable of organizing this. . Chances are some intelligence service (Iraqi?>> small modification here... Saudi?>> they're well introduced and trusted through the Bush clan) was behind it. There were some indications of Saddam's involvement in the first WTC explosion in 93. I don't have any concrete proof though. He threatened with reprisals back in 90-91 during the Kuwait affair.     Saudis were the culprits but Bush chose to ignore the oil suppliers (and fortune bringer since they're into oil!! Bush used the US forces to his own private means, Not that simple. US presidents are puppets of the big money. Whatever they do, must get a prior approval. Whenever they try to do something unacceptable for the system (like Clinton) they take a beating >> ever wonder why Monica did not get that (expensive) dress cleaned from his cum, if it was not to blackmail him? >> she was sent by the Republicans. >> indeed you state what really happened, they couldn't turn against the real culprits (Saudis) cos they hold them by the balls,  so they chose to pick on the weaker kid (not that I would classify Saddam as anything other than a thug) on the block   by lying about the Saudis and falsely accusing Saddam, but at the same time get a hold of 9% of the world oil reserves >> If the US were not so bloody blind, they should demand that he pays the Iraq war from his own pocket      Libya manufactured poison gas, so did Saddam, it's not high tech. He hid it somewhere. Either that or the US did not want to find it for some political and propaganda reasons.  >> had they even found one small funnel, they would've shown it to the world. Even that General (the black dude >> forget his name as I speak) admitted there was no proof and he was anything but convinced when he read those prefabricated proofs on truck trailors.     I think cyniscism is accepting the tough and ugly truth and not fight it, even finding an advantage into it. Which is the same - if you speak of it as being tough and ugly, you accept it. Fightin and taking advantage are moral points. I try to cynically  avoid them.  Which in turns becomes opportunism once you start proffitting from it. I hardly profit from it, but I am a recipient.  >> not muchg to add here. We (you & I) contribute, but not profit from it, crumbs falling from the table is being a recipient. No wonder I don't want kids to grow; as to avoid having them live in such a screwed up world.

IVNORD wrote:         >> I am a little aghast by your  cynism (I am often cynic myself) Once a cynic, always a cynic. Don’t you think it helps us keep talking?  You might have a point there. Then I am an idealist cynic.     which I think is caused by your lucidity and a good dose of fatalism (even resignation). How about pragmatism? Caused by pragmatism? >> OK you evil pragmatist   In a way, you're completely right, what's the use of fighting it, it is overpowering everything. And you make no qualms saying that you participate into that pyramid  You should too. You’ve admitted that you perform that balancing act of reconciling your bourgeois way of living  >> Well I am being a bit sarcastic of myself because I precisely avoid acting and living like a bourgeois, but compared to the world population, I must estimate my standard of living to be among the top 20%. I was refferring to myself fighting the revolution from my computer in my living room while listening to prog music.   with your conscience by means of “fighting it (pure capitalism/imperialism).” Now it’s time to admit that you’re a recipient of the imperialism you’re fighting. Actually I contribute probably much more than being a recipient, but my everyday combat to drive to a more equal world (no matter of insignificant it may be) ismaking me a bit more at peace with myself rather than plain admitting that I contribute and enforce the ugly machine, without trying to steer it as much as I can. This is why I voted against the Socialist this WE >> sending them in the opposition to rebuild rather than let the crooked machine get worse.    Maybe an unaware or unwilling one, but still a recipient. As well as I am. I may be closer in line to the through, but you’re not that far behind. And if we take a closer look, we will see our friends Chus and Ivan standing in line too. The same line, different countries  >> Obviously, we are all from the middle class(some evn from the upper middle class, maybe), but I don't find the middle class being much the recipient of imperialism, but being in some rather weird way, we appear either the role model for the poor (feeding the ugly machine) wanting to better their standard of living, or the ugly servants to the that ugly machine they are fighting because it oppresses them.   But if you don't fight it (pure capitalim/imperialism), you get horror like Red October. Wonder which you’re referring to – the Russian revolution or the submarine movie. Both were horrific. I meant the Russian revolution, but also the many French revolutions before (and the violence that came from them >> this is what I meant by horrible, even if the film was not good either >> but the book was correct). This revolution lead to unqualified agression towards those that were the top of the pyramid, but tried to keep the system in place. There will always more revolutions of that genre unless the sharing is more equitable.   I have not yet given up hope (and still fight fo it) that my idealism coming from my Uni days of a relatively equal world  I wish you all the luck. And if you succeed I'll be the first to shake your hand.  Well we will need luck, and I think mine is a losing battle (especially when the sharing system is corrupted like it was in Belgium), ultimately greed will always be stronger. Doesn't mean we don't have to fight it, though!    Those Cubans in Miami are anything but nice. Your judgement is too harsh. Lots of decent people left Cuba, middle class and poor ones. I don't think their claims to their property are illegitimate. Whatever they had, a country house or a cigar factory.  meant to adress this yesterday (which is why I didn't edit it) but eventually forgot top reply >> Most of the Cubans that escaped the Revolution in the early days were mafiosis (the ones that had the means to flee it), the middle class (never numerous enough in Latin America and this is one of the reasons why stability is still eluding the South and Cental American continents) that managed to flee did it on boats of fortunes  >> those famous boat people.    But blaming Clinton for the Iraq war is not only bloody scandalous, but also preposterous. Iraq and Afghanistan have equal weight here. Clinton could have gotten rid of Osama a number of times, but he was busy with his personal things. >> the Bush clan created Bin Laden and allowed them (his family) to escape the US on 10/11   Clinton had NOTHING to do with invading a innocent country (re: 9/11) >> this was all Bush's doing. It was Das Kapital's doing. Saddam was implicated in 9/11. >>What??? The Saudis were the culprits but Bush chose to ignore the oil suppliers (and fortune bringer since they're into oil!! Bush used the US forces to his own private means, by lying about the Saudis and falsely accusing Saddam, but at the same time get a hold of 9% of the world oil reserves >> If the US were not so bloody blind, they should demand that he pays the Iraq war from his own pocket      True,  no direct evidence was found, but neither were found his chemical weapons, and we all know they’ve existed. >> Iraq probably bought the gasses from somewhere else, but they were probably never able to produce them by themselves.   Das Kapital does not care about human tragedy (no drastic action has been taken against Quadaffi with all his terrorism), so Saddam would have been left alone if not for the economic disruption 9/11 caused. Call it cynicism but that's what it is.            Obviously, the US thinks it has the right for those primary resources (oil in this case), and that they are willing to play a given price, but it belongs to them , Its called imperialism. Note that any nation takes advantage of a weaker one (as Belgium had it with Congo, etc.)  >> Indeed Colonialism is a form of imperialism that hides behind the so-called excuse of civilizing the occupied grounds. Certainly not anymore acceptable to me.    Chavez, you can do whatever you please with your country, as long as you sell us your oil. Correct >> and that suits you?   If you don't look at things from the economy perspective, you will continue to confuse the primary and the secondary. >> again your cynism, I believe   I tend to think that cynicism is when tough and ugly truth is spoken. Just stating the fact. >> I think cyniscism is accepting the tough and ugly truth and not fight it, even finding an advantage into it. Which in turns becomes opportunism once you start proffitting from it.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: The highlifgted parts are almost identical to your utopic and mandatory communism, it's funny how despite the color and ideology all totalitarism is similar.    Lets stay agreeing with music because your post is simply unbelievable.   Iván

¨Proletariat wrote:

did you actually read what I wrote?   Completely amazed but I read it all, I thought this radical positions had already been accepted as flawed.   I just said not manditory   Yes sure  but  you say that if you don't agree with the system the Government should not care for you and you shjould abandon yor OWN COUNTRY, and then you dare to say it's not mandatory???????   You say Communism must noit be mandatory,. but you wrote:   Look if he chooses a diffrent society over the offitial one (that is based on productivity)than he isn't a part of the nation.   YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AN OFFICIAL SOCIETY, and thoise who don't agree are not part of the nation....DO YOU STILL DARE TO SAY IT'S NOT MANDATORY??????   When I ask you if the people who don't agree with your system should gop to hell, you answer me:   Not to hell (that would be christianity) but to another country. I believe the US still takes in rejects at times.   And you have the guts to tell me that this is not mandatory??? PLEASE   communism is an economic system. it has little to do with the government.   Communism is a political philosophy with economic consequences, be honest in that.   The diffrence is the racism and that power was given to one man.   Yep dictatorship of Hitler against dictatorship of the proletariat......at the end is a DICTATORSHIP.   I dont see how these compare.   You must be blind because everything you mentioned is there, the workerds army (called Folk army) the abolition of proivate property, etc.    I dont agree with 18 and 23 and said so.   How humanitaruian, you don't believe in death penalty but those who don't agree with Communism can go too USA because your state should not care for them, you should be awarded with the Peace Nobel Prize.   I agree that the form of communism as it exists today is alot like natzi's but not because that is how its suppost to be, because it was twisted by the power hungry and the same happens in democracys.   All that you said is in the 25 points of the Nazi Manifesto, extremes touch each other.   are you saying that free markets reduce genocide, because there are free markets in the sucan, some of the free-est in the world, if you want the opposite of communism that is where you should go.   Gensocides?  Who is talking about Genocides?   Sucan?   Hey I'm talking about the democratic system, one man, one vote, human, civil and political rights for everybody, respect to private property, as in any civilized country.   Iván