• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chavez seizes oil service firms

Wow. My parrot doesn't learn that fast. How'd you teach yours to catch on so quick?

Not.

One.

American.

Voted.

For.

Obama.

The logical corollary is, thereforre, that people who voted for Obama weren't Americans. As I pointed out, already, they may have been US citizens, but that doesn't make them Americans.

Man chill out.

No need to insult anyone.
 
I'm an American and a socialist as well.

Nope. Not possible. Americans do not believe in stealing. Socialists can't achieve their policy goals without stealing. therefore, American socialists do not exist.


the problem with Obama is that he is not a socialist but he is a fine president anyway.

He's a socailist and a boob of a president, rivalling Jimmy Carter in his incompetence.

You may want to look up the difference between social programs and a socialistic government.

You may want to read the Constitution, where you can learn that the government isn't allowed to run social programs.

Has Obama asked you for all the land yet? I don't think he will so he is not a socialist. Thanks

I don't think Obama has my telephone number. Stealing people's money to fund unconstitutional social programs....socialism.
 
Wow. My parrot doesn't learn that fast. How'd you teach yours to catch on so quick?

Not.

One.

American.

Voted.

For.

Obama.

The logical corollary is, thereforre, that people who voted for Obama weren't Americans. As I pointed out, already, they may have been US citizens, but that doesn't make them Americans.

I just couldn't believe you meant to type that.

Teh Stoopid is RIFE amongst our forum conservatives, it would seem. :)
 
I understand political differences but that is going to far, bordering on mod action.

What I have said, or what he has said?

If you meant what I have said, then I disagree completely. The entire notion of what it means to be "American" is entirely subjective, to the point of individual subjectivity, and is therefore ultimately meaningless to anyone else (aside from where others versions of "American" overlap, of course).

If you meant what he said, who cares? It's not like anyone is going to take him seriously.
 
Last edited:
USSR had elections. Warsaw Pact nations had elections. Cuba has elections. China has elections. North Korea has elections. etc.
 
Maybe your standards are failing, but the Americans' stantards are not. Then again, not one American voted for Obama, so maybe you're just not sure of who we are anymore.

The Germans loved Hitler, all the way until he started WWII. Even after that it took them a while to figure out the problem.

Why should peasants in Venezueala be different from educated Germans?

So what I got from your post was:

1. If you voted from Obama you are unAmerican (oxymoron anyone?)

2. Popular leaders can lead to tyranny/dictatorships/etc.

I suppose #2 is fine. Nothing really wrong with your logic as long as you realize the reverse is also true, that popular leaders are sometimes JUST popular. Nothing evil in the works.

#1 is ridiculous. I thought we moved past the whole un-american/patriotic nonsense but apparently not.

Did I interpret your post incorrectly?
 
USSR had elections. Warsaw Pact nations had elections. Cuba has elections. China has elections. North Korea has elections. etc.

So your implying that the elections are inadequate? How so? Also the word authoritarianism has been throw around alot in this thread. I dont think this is accurate as an authoritarian system is one in which political particiapation is limited and/or controlled. I dont see any evidence of this in Venuzuela.
 
How is he a "fine president"? Most of his administration's fiscal policies are going to be devastating to the economy, to the point where they could be (probably will be) irreversible.

Unlike the conservative policies that have done such a great job so far? :roll:
 
Unlike the conservative policies that have done such a great job so far? :roll:

What conservative policies are you refering to?
 
So your implying that the elections are inadequate? How so? Also the word authoritarianism has been throw around alot in this thread. I dont think this is accurate as an authoritarian system is one in which political particiapation is limited and/or controlled. I dont see any evidence of this in Venuzuela.



He and his party control all aspects of Venezuela's political system..from the lowest police station to the highest judge.

The primary opposition leader had to flee the nation recently do to questionable charges from a Courts run by Chavez.
Interpol seeks arrest of opposition leader: Venezuela - Yahoo! Canada News

Chavez shut down an opposition TV station and has actively been silencing dissenters in all forms of media in Venezuela.
Chavez has organized a Militia force which has been seen and used recently against people who protested against give him the ability to be President for Life.

Since he gained power he has dismantled or taken control of anything that threatens his power.

He's a Dictator and will remain in power until killed or he dies naturally.

..

Funny how a Far Right military man who tried to seize power in a bloody coup becomes a beacon of democracy as long as he espouses socialist/communist ideals in a red beret.

Politically he is very similar to Mussolini..
Benito went Right when he realized the Left where a dead end. Chavez went Left when he realized the Right was a dead end.
In both cases personal power is the key and what matters in the end.
 
Last edited:
No doubt the people like him, he's a populist but in terms of things like property rights you could draw a parallel of authoritarian rule with his seizure of private property.

PDVSA engaged in significantly more authoritarian and damaging actions before they were placed into public control.

EDIT: I'll have more to say to this thread later.
 
Last edited:
Hey, it's none of our damn business anymore. We're letting the UN and China take over as world policeman. We're officially on vacation now. Man does it feel good too.
 
He and his party control all aspects of Venezuela's political system..from the lowest police station to the highest judge.

That's simply not true.

The primary opposition leader had to flee the nation recently do to questionable charges from a Courts run by Chavez.
Interpol seeks arrest of opposition leader: Venezuela - Yahoo! Canada News

I don't think it's that far out that this man was actually guilty of the charges of corruption leveled against him. To put it into context, there have been supporters of Chavez that have been charged with corruption as well. Corruption is a bipartisan affair in Venezuela, as is prosecution for it.

Chavez shut down an opposition TV station and has actively been silencing dissenters in all forms of media in Venezuela.

The television station that was inciting a revolt against a democratically elected government was simply denied a network license. They are actually still operating on I believe cable, which many Venezuelans have.

Chavez has organized a Militia force which has been seen and used recently against people who protested against give him the ability to be President for Life.

More details as to what you are specifically referring to, please.

Since he gained power he has dismantled or taken control of anything that threatens his power.

I don't exactly think that you can claim that "he" has taken control of it, as a lot of the nationalizations are dependent upon work on the grassroots level by workers, who have a very significant influence in Venezuelan politics nowadays. It is not simply "Chavez vs. freedom" as you would like to portray it; the situation is much more complex and broad based than that.

He's a Dictator and will remain in power until killed or he dies naturally.

See, HG? I told you someone would say the D word!:lol:

Funny how a Far Right military man who tried to seize power in a bloody coup

Chavez was never exactly far right; he was more of a Blanqui'ist.
 
Then again, not one American voted for Obama, so maybe you're just not sure of who we are anymore.

And this is why nobody really gives a **** about what you have to say around here.
 
I just couldn't believe you meant to type that.
Trust me, in time you will see crap like this say to yourself "meh, business as usual for Scarecrow."

Teh Stoopid is RIFE amongst our forum conservatives, it would seem. :)
Only with a select group of them. We have a very intelligent lot of conservatives on this board who don't feel the need to talk down to you in order to make their arguments. Unfortunately you have met one of the "others."

To be fair, we have some equally challenged liberals on this site. You'll meet them soon enough as well.

;)
 
It sort of makes me miss ToT. Ahh, the memories...:(

:rofl

Dude, I can't get there from here! Although his clinical insanity was at times entertaining. His PM death threats always made my evening!

:mrgreen:
 
No doubt the people like him, he's a populist but in terms of things like property rights you could draw a parallel of authoritarian rule with his seizure of private property.
It depends on what kind of private property this is. Murray Rothbard suggested declaring a lot of property unowned because it "owners" were so dependent on the state. When these corporations abide by the common law idea of private property and get no state support then I'd care a lot more. It seems like switching one kind of centralised, socialism for another.
 
Back
Top Bottom