How many are paying attention to Venezuela?

[The Rabbi]

socialism/communism/humanism

yep. synonyms

Venezuela's Challenge for the 21st Century: Building a Democratic, Humanist Socialism | venezuelanalysis.com

Chavez, in fact, had to intervene to quell a packed stadium’s chants of “Chavez si, Lula no!” Before that same crowd, the Venezuelan leader made his most overt ideological statement to date:

We must reclaim socialism as a thesis, a project and a path, but a new type of socialism, a humanist one, which puts humans and not machines or the state ahead of everything. That’s the debate we must promote around the world, and the WSF is a good place to do it.

The problem is not that the Left doesnt know anything. It's that so much of what they know is wrong.

Well, I'm happy for you letting the communists control your use of language.

Go XXXX yourself, sore loser.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm always amazed at the idiocy of the RW lunatics who opine that liberals, or even centrist democrats, approve of chavez and communism.

Sean Penns are a distinct minority even amongst liberals

If you're going to lie, at least try to make it believable. Now you'll backpeddle and claim all these Democrats aren't really liberals. The proof is that no true liberal would support Chavez. So predictable.

Jimmy Carter's tribute to 'bold' Hugo Chavez - Democratic Underground

NY Democrat Stands Out In Congress By Tweeting Praise For Hugo Chavez | Mediaite

https://www.progressive.org/the-hollywood-left-says-goodbye-to-hugo-chavez

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/world/americas/chavez-funeral.html?_r=0

 

[thereisnospoon]

Srsly?
Fears of more protest clashes high in Venezuela

Thanks

Apparently some are not happy in the Socialist Utopia.



shocking.

During the Chavez regime, one which the leader promised populist reforms and to return the country's wealth to the people, 70% of the population continued to live in abject poverty.
Once again demonstrating the fact that only those politically connected have entry into the elite ruling class. While everyone else is kept miserable.
There is no benevolence in socialism.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thanks

Apparently some are not happy in the Socialist Utopia.



shocking.

During the Chavez regime, one which the leader promised populist reforms and to return the country's wealth to the people, 70% of the population continued to live in abject poverty.
Once again demonstrating the fact that only those politically connected have entry into the elite ruling class. While everyone else is kept miserable.
There is no benevolence in socialism.

But his intentions are good!

Seriously, people made that argument.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thanks

Apparently some are not happy in the Socialist Utopia.



shocking.

During the Chavez regime, one which the leader promised populist reforms and to return the country's wealth to the people, 70% of the population continued to live in abject poverty.
Once again demonstrating the fact that only those politically connected have entry into the elite ruling class. While everyone else is kept miserable.
There is no benevolence in socialism.

Of course they did. Maybe the problem is you believe the goal of socialism is to make everyone have the same pay or the poor will disappear or something...

 

[westwall]

Apparently some are not happy in the Socialist Utopia.



shocking.

During the Chavez regime, one which the leader promised populist reforms and to return the country's wealth to the people, 70% of the population continued to live in abject poverty.
Once again demonstrating the fact that only those politically connected have entry into the elite ruling class. While everyone else is kept miserable.
There is no benevolence in socialism.

Of course they did. Maybe the problem is you believe the goal of socialism is to make everyone have the same pay or the poor will disappear or something...

The system we support and like has a Middle Class. The system you support has the poor and the elite. Funny how you're so blind you can't see that.

 

[bripat9643]

That must be an old picture. She's 41 now.

My wife just loves her and loves that show.

Needs mo booty but still nice tho

I think that photo is photoshopped. It's her face on someone else's body.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The only reason Venezuela is relevant is because they are an oil producer. Funny how the Global Left does not try and shut them down.

And of course Chavez never shut off the oil spigot to the US either.

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Why would he?
The laugh riot was when Chavez threatened to sell his oil to China and India.
Yeah. How'd that work out for him.
At the end of the day, inside every socialist dictator is a capitalist screaming to get out.

 

[Political Junky]

It seems that more on the Right are following Venezuela.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Capitalism has failed also at times. The great depression and when our economy crashed in 2008 for a couple instances. Capitalism had to be propped up with taxpayer money. USA hated chavez because he increased the royalties on oil U.S. companies were taking out of Venezuela. What a criminal Chavez was in the republican mind. A democratically elected president raising royalties on assets (oil) exported out of his country.

Capitalism does the best for the most.

 

[Spoonman]

Mostly for the benefit of educating you left wing fools.

very simply put....socialism leads to no toilet paper....

libs don't care about that. they wipe their ass with the constitution

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Apparently some are not happy in the Socialist Utopia.



shocking.

During the Chavez regime, one which the leader promised populist reforms and to return the country's wealth to the people, 70% of the population continued to live in abject poverty.
Once again demonstrating the fact that only those politically connected have entry into the elite ruling class. While everyone else is kept miserable.
There is no benevolence in socialism.

Of course they did. Maybe the problem is you believe the goal of socialism is to make everyone have the same pay or the poor will disappear or something...

Isn't that the supposed goal of socialism? You keep trying to sell us on this unfairness crap so doesn't that mean everyone gets the same amount of everything?

 

[1776]

Liberals being the lying sacks of shit they are "claim" they don't want to repeat the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, etc....but they always end up there in the end.

 

[Spoonman]

Liberals being the lying sacks of shit they are "claim" they don't want to repeat the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, etc....but they always end up there in the end.

 

[1776]

Oh no...Obama lying about obamacare wasn't him lying, it was YOU mishearing what he said. Uh...you can keep your insurance plan "if it meets certain standards" is what he snuck in after caught in the lie.

Liberals being the lying sacks of shit they are "claim" they don't want to repeat the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, etc....but they always end up there in the end.

 

[The Rabbi]

It seems that more on the Right are following Venezuela.

Because conservatives are generally better informed than liberals. We see this on this board every day. Every day some brain dead leftist posts some crap that the rest of us refute with articles, links, and graphs. And then they tell us the articles are biased (can't say how), the links dont work (they do for everyone else) and the graphs are misleading.
Liberals are low information voters.

 

[Indeependent]

Anything to the left of Ayn Rand is COMMUNISM!

You were born retarded, weren't you?

Unlike you, I don't need to use an ad hominem.
Try reading the book.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Anything to the left of Ayn Rand is COMMUNISM!

You were born retarded, weren't you?

Unlike you, I don't need to use an ad hominem.
Try reading the book.

Did you read it? You obviously didn't understand it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Apparently some are not happy in the Socialist Utopia.



shocking.

During the Chavez regime, one which the leader promised populist reforms and to return the country's wealth to the people, 70% of the population continued to live in abject poverty.
Once again demonstrating the fact that only those politically connected have entry into the elite ruling class. While everyone else is kept miserable.
There is no benevolence in socialism.

Of course they did. Maybe the problem is you believe the goal of socialism is to make everyone have the same pay or the poor will disappear or something...

It does..Socialism is rooted in the common good. Groups. Collectivism.
For socialism to work it first must have a captive market.
It also cannot function unless any aspect of the individual is defeated and forever quashed.
The only way this can be done is under threat of government sanctions.
"You will comply".
Individual achievement and success, creativity and the entrepreneurial spirit are channeled to government for 'the common good'.
All wealth is confiscated by government to do with as it sees fit.
This method has been tried and failed throughout the history of mankind.
Then there is the so called hybrid of socialism and capitalism. This is where earnings are taxed at confiscatory rates. All enterprise is heavily regulated and taxed.
This is the failing system we see in Western Europe.
To date there are some 27 EU nations. 25 of which are subsidized by two.
These nations have labor laws which mandate to business all hiring and firing practices. How much product they can create. What type of product. All subsidized by government. Not for the purpose of insuring success, but to insure government remains heavily involved in private enterprise. Mandates on vacation time and work hours and mandatory retirement and pensions.
Sooner or later these systems become unsustainable.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ah there's the rub, you believe, in your gut, that is true don't you?

You know a slight increase in income tax hardly represents a policy of land confiscation and redistribution of wealth.

there are only so many 'slight increases' of 5% to be had...

what gives the Feds the right to confiscate practically half your money right off the top....?

The constitution and the 16th amendment, although the 16th amendment was aimed mostly at the extremely wealthy at first. This changed from the articles of confederation to the constitution because of the inability to tax under the articles.

"To lay and collect taxes"..That's the meat in the sandwich.
it does not say at what percentage. Nor does it say "for whatever government sees fit".