Well if we’re accusing people of overlooking things, there’s this from the third sentence of the story in the OP, which seems to have escaped your notice:
They not only supported it but encouraged it.
Nope, people with good intentions don’t want that kind of power.
Sorry if I was being unclear…I was agreeing with you (sarcasm doesn’t come off very well with the written word, sometimes!)
Well, you get the government you deserve, etc., etc.
To the Chavez apologists: Show me something historically that will convince me that this nascent “socialist” dictatorship will be good for the country in the long haul. Has this type of government ever worked? I repeat. This guy is not a benevolent king.
on preview: Sarafina, no harm no foul.
Poor people aren’t so concerned with the long haul. Getting enough to eat every day is as far into the future many venture. Tell me, are the majority of the people in China better off now than they were in 1948?
I named one in the OP. One other has shown up. I didn’t claim there were a lot of them, but it’s surprising how many tolerate this type of nonsense.
So, it’s still “too soon to tell”? And yet, aren’t you one of those who keeps saying the US is sliding towards fascism or some such nonsense?
I said “power hungry, would-be tyrant”. I think this is plenty to demonstrate that claim.
Double :rolleyes: :rolleyes: back at you. How many threads have you started about the evils of signing statements? And yet you still can’t find it in yourself to condemn this move by Chavez. Where is your intellectual honesty, BG? Is it only bad to act in an undemocratic way if someone pushes for policies that you don’t like?
That’s not the right question. The right question is: “Are the majority of the people in China better off then the majority of the people in Taiwan?” I’d have to say no.
No that isn’t the question. The question was to show a successful socialist experiment. In terms of general welfare the Chinese populace are far better off today than during the pre-Communist period.
BrainGlutton’s link didn’t work, so I don’t know if this is the thread he linked to, but here is a rather interesting post of his, demonstrating what you are talking about here, John Mace. The level of authoritarianism he is willing to put up with apparently depends on what the ultimate goal is.
I think that very well might be the most irrelevant bullshit post I’ve seen on this board in a while. I’ll respond anyway.
No, poor people aren’t concerned with the long haul. You can’t think about your grandchildren when you can’t find bread. On that we agree. But, dictators love people who can’t find bread. It makes it easier on them. If you keep the people desperate and fearful you keep the people under your control. Rather Machievalian, that.
China. Lord, as soon as soon as I wrote the word “socialism” I knew some idiot was going to bring up China. China is irrelevant. What works for the rest of the world does not work in China, and what works for China doesn’t work for the rest of the world. China is unique, and always has been - even before the communist “dynasty” . The nation has lasted in largely its present form for thousands of years and is therefore irrelevant to the situation in Venezuela.
A thought experiment. George W. Bush becomes increasingly unpopular. Hillary Clinton leads a coup against him, and when she starts, NBC enthusiastically supports and encourages people to join in the uprising against the elected president in an attempt to violently overthrow him. Clinton’s coup attempt is suppressed. What do you think happens to NBC?
My guess is that they’re charged with treason. The idea that they’d keep their public airwaves license after advocating the violent overthrow of the elected government is beyond the pale.
Daniel
Pretty much every country in the world - with a few notable exceptions - is better off than it was in 1948.
Besides, the 50 million or so who died due to Mao’s social experiments aren’t doing that well.
Oh go fuck yourself. That’s the most asinine bullshit I’ve read in a long time. If you want a good eye opener read how China and the US compare when it comes to people living in poverty. link .
Try challenging the source of that fun fact!
Pretty darn sneaky, John, the ol’ bait and switch. Lure us in here for a good old fashioned bashing, then it turns out to be about Vladimir Illyich Chavez.
Whats worrying about Chavez is not so much his socialism, but this anti-Americanism. What’s worrying about it is that it seems to work.
Are you intentionally that stupid? Where did I compare the U.S. to China? I said that China can’t be compared to ANY nation.
Now what the living fuck does your latest irrelevant post have to do with Venezuela?
You lamely attempted to discredit socialism in China. But you failed miserably. Don’t blame me for your stupitity.
[Jar-jar]Given the current developments and as acting leader of the opposition, meesa propose that the Senate vote immediately on emergency powers for the Supreme Chancellor.[/Jar-jar]
Hey, kids, it’s time for a fun lesson in the use of data! Let’s see what CBEscapee did wrong, shall we?
On the face of it, his lovely irrelevant cite shows that more people are living below “the poverty line” in the USA than in China. Trouble is, that “poverty line” isn’t defined anywhere on the site he links to. But that’s probably okay; it’s bound to be the same for all countries, right? Hmm. Well, let’s see where they got their data from.
Ah, it’s the CIA World Factbook. And yep, the numbers correspond. But how does the CIA World Factbook define the “poverty line”? Clicky clicky…
Oops. Looks like those numbers aren’t directly comparable at all. Maybe our friend could have gone with a more reliable indicator like GDP per capita. After all, it’s only 6 times higher in the USA than in China. Shocking!
I honestly can’t remember what I’ve said about Chavez before, and I really don’t care.
But I’ve stated my general principles here and elsewhere: I’m aware that there’s evil in the world, and while I’d like to see us remedy what evil we can, I’m aware that we can’t remedy anywhere near all of it.
What I’m primarily concerned with, as an American, is the nature of the U.S. as an actor in the world. The nation I am a citizen of, whose conduct I have some minute responsibility for, I expect to be a force for good, not evil, in the world. So it bothers me a lot more when we do evil than when some obscure tyrant does evil on a similar scale. It bothers me a lot more when obscure tyrants that we ally with, that we cooperate militarily with, that our government regards as friends, do evil, and our government says and does nothing or next to it, than when a government that we have no such ties with does evil.
Right now, we’re allied with a number of the world’s bad actors, notably a couple of the former Soviet republics in central Asia that have carried on the Soviet tradition to the best of their ability. And of course, our President looked into Putin’s soul and saw that he was a swell guy - and supposed Russia expert Condoleezza Rice never gainsaid him, as far as anyone can tell.
My main thought about Chavez is, “OK, he’s not a great guy, now so what?” Lots of not-great guys are in power around the world. Some are our friends, some aren’t, and plenty of both groups have far more blood on their hands than does Chavez.
Why we lavish so much attention on this guy, I’ll never know. Unless it has to do with a three-letter word, starts with ‘o’.