Everything about Chavez’ sembrar el petroleo policy is directed towards preparing for that day – so that when the oil does run out, Venezuela will have developed other industries to fall back on, and will have a healthier and better-educated labor force and better public infrastructure.
:rolleyes: You have missed the point of the joke to a quite astonishing degree.
But why don’t the board’s leftists just go ahead and condemn it categorically? Why all the coy smartassedness from them? Isn’t just as playgroundish to go, “Yeah? Well, you like democracy? I like totalitarianism then, so there!”?
Really? So if it were Mammy and Scarlet, would whatever point you take from it still hold?
“Oh, Mammy, Mammy, we are surrounded by bloodthirsty Comanche! Whatever shall we do?”
“The solidarity of the oppressed peoples in armed struggle will cover me. You’re on your own, honky bee-yotch…”
I think this issue is important enough to merit the GD treatment, so I started a new thread. Have fun! 
Actually my reference to the world’s keeper of democracy wasn’t about you but the USA in general. You’re just another dipshit American lapping up the slop printed in the US press and claiming it’s gospel.
There is no usurpation of power. It has been done legally through Venezuela’s political system and law.
So little fellow, maybe when you are a little older and hopefully wiser, you’ll see that other people choose to do things a bit differently than the US and that is a very good thing.
If you are so ignorant of why China’s economy has improved recently, I’d say it is incumbent upon you not to offer nonsensical claims about things you don’t understand, rather than it being incumbent upon me to explain to you two and a half decades of market reforms in China.
Sure, only the punchline probably would be, “Frankly, Miz Scarlett, I don’ give a damn!”
:rolleyes: Whatever they’ve got in Venezuela right now, it ain’t totalitarianism.
And that is the precise moment that things began to improve or were there improvements before that happened?
Hmm. This is a troubling development. And it gets back to the question I asked in an earlier thread: What does the US value more? Democracy or capitalism? So far, though Chávez has been granted broad powers, democracy remains in place. (He can still theoretically be voted out when the time comes, no?) It is capitalism that is threatened.
As long as the Venezuelans want this guy as their leader (as a strong majority seem to), why is it our business to tell them he must go? My opinion remains the same as before. Chávez is Huey Long. Huey was essentially a tyrant in his little kingdom of Louisiana, but an elected one, and mostly a benevolent one. Jury’s still out on Chávez.
What I find interesting are the paroxysms of rage Chávez generates from the US right wing. His every move is an outrage! An absolute outrage!!
Where was their touching concern for democracy during the Venezuelan coup attempt? During the rush by the Bush White House to congratulate and recognize the coup leaders, I don’t recall much noise from the right.
And we hear hardly a peep from the right about, say, Burma (or Myanmar, as its military leaders would like us to call it). Why are there not daily editorials in the right-wing press demanding freedom and democracy for the disenfranchised peoples of that nation? Why no cries for action from the right? Why no outrage? Why instead the apoplectic fixation on Chávez?
That is a very slippery question. Very slippery. Slippery as… as… (Somebody help me with a simile here…)
Because Burma (1) has no oil, (2) is not tending towards socialism, and (3) is not inspiring/encouraging leftist movements in the Western Hemisphere?
An epileptic eel in a barrel of bacon grease?
Oh Burma has oil. But that oil is happily controlled by BP. So hey, why rock the boat by demanding democracy?
So, am I right, the answer to my question was “Yes, this process was just fine and allowed for by the Venezuelan Constitution?”
Well then, that’s democracy in action! Freedom triumphs once again! Why isn’t everyone cheering this?
Zimbabwe, OTOH, has no oil. And Zimbabwe’s in really desperate shape.
Because like Liberal, you are still telling to yourself all liberals over here in the US should (or could) **never ** have nuanced positions. Saying that we should be concerned in a particular way is similar to a “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
Feel free to discuss that aspect if you like, but that’s not what I was trying to get at. Venezuela can do as it pleases, my point was that a few posters here seem to overlook the power grabbing tactics of Chavez or dismiss them during discussions about his actions as president.
My guess is the reason he generates outrage isn’t his acts as a president so much as his inflammatory rhetoric against the US in general and Bush in particular. When you refer to our president as The Devil incarnate, that’s going to piss his supporters off. If he wants to regulate the shit out of the Venezuelan economy and isolate it from “yankee capitalists”, and if the people seem to be behind him on that, then so be it.
A modus ponens is similar to a confirmation of the antecedant fallacy. So what? Even a nuanced position has some underlying premise(s). Is there nothing to be learned from the many times throughout history that the assent of the congress of the ruling party has been paraded as confirmation of democracy? I would at least expect liberals, of all people, to be at the very least suspicious. Civil liberties and all that.