Venezuela opposition will consider privatizations

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jacob Richter
Venezuela opposition will consider privatizations
Snert Snert's picture

Oh nos.  They're just considering things, all willy-nilly!??   Thinking about ideas without the proper control mechanisms on those ideas?

Slumberjack

It should be rightly considered in the context of a real steal of a scheme to once again fleece the Venezuelan people.  It is well known where those ideas originate from.

Noah_Scape

They might have a point. Control those ideas because they are simply the propaganda of the corporate sector. We need to bring back the Thought Police, but for the capitalists this time.

And ya, where DO they all come from? - those ideas about privatisations? - from the Bilderbergers? Yale's Skull and Bones Soc.? ahhh yes, it is the dreaded Elites and their little clubs isn't it. We have a similar problem here in Canada, where 40% or more of Canadians support the capitalist imperialist corporate culture "that seeks to fleece the people" [their pensions depend on it?].

Snert Snert's picture

Well, there's the conundrum of the day.

Capitalists and their evil ilk propose privatization to "fleece" the people... and yet the people don't seem to feel fleeced, and give their approval at the ballot box.  Now what??

Kind of makes me think of "The Greatest Canadian"... remember that?  Lots of people voting for Tommy Douglas and Norman Bethune and Pierre Trudeau and such, and then someone had to come along and vote for Don Cherry.  Don!  Cherry!

The nerve of people, misusing their free will to want something they shouldn't want!  Everyone deserves a voice, but not if they're going to waste it on stupid beliefs and attitudes!!  That's not what freedom is for!

Anyway, I guess the huge worry here is that if the opposition can propose something like privatization, the people might actually decide they want that.  Is that it?

 

Fidel

They have a real electoral system in Venezuela. And a true majority of them voted against American domination of their economy. 

That's what our corrupt stooges and their rich American friends are afraid of in Canada. They would never trust Canadians with a modern electoral system in the same way the doctor and madman said Chileans couldn't be trusted with democracy in 1973.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
They have a real electoral system in Venezuela.

 

WTF?

 

I just posted this in the [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/get-out-and-vote-may-2nd]Get out and vote[/url] thread, but I'll post it here too, and maybe you can tell us how their system is better:

 

-----

 

In the last election in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez and his party earned 48.3% of the popular vote and won 96 seats and the Presidency.

The opposition earned 47.2% of the popular vote -- 1.1% less -- and won a mere 64 seats (exactly 2/3 the seats for 1% less of the vote).

"Others", with a paltry 1.4% of the popular vote, managed three seats.  So getting 1.4% of the popular votes is worth three seats, but getting 1.1% more of the popular vote is worth 32 seats.

In the interest of fairness, how about using Venezuela as your example of a corrupt, undemocratic FPTP hellhole for the next four years?  Chavez is a great example of a president who claims a majority, with less than 50% of the vote.

 

-----

 

So that's what a "real" system looks like??

Fidel

Yes, as I was saying before, our corrupt stooges in Canada would dearly love to achieve 48% support in legitimizing their rule. 48% by our illegit FPTP system would be considered a landslide victory. But your corrupt stooges in Ottawa won't be winning that kind of support at the polls anytime soon. They would likely fair even worse by a real electoral system such as MMP.

And for Chavez' socialists, that's 48% [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18241]in spite of US attempts at election rigging in Venezuela[/url]

Imagine what our corrupt Bay Street stooges would say if China or India started shovelling money to opposition parties in Amreeka an' Bananada? They'd surely consider it an act of war.

ETA: And in case you didn't know it before, [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18618]CIA-backed military coups[/url] have absolutely nothing to do with free will of the electorate in any of the dozens of countries where the right has participated in election rigging, assassinations of foreign leaders, and even false flag terrorism.

[url=The">http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Afghan_ESal_Iraq_Elections.h... Afghan, El Salvador, and Iraq Elections U.S. managed elections, with the threat of violence,

are called "democratic"[/url]

Do you  have anything else to say incredibly naive or otherwise?

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
48% by our illegit FPTP system would be considered a landslide victory.

 

Looks like it's a landslide victory under Venezuela's "superior" system too!

 

50% more seats for 1% more votes!

 

(I think you'll need to choose between reflexively supporting Venezuela, and credibility on this one).

Fidel

Snert wrote:

Quote:
48% by our illegit FPTP system would be considered a landslide victory.

 

Looks like it's a landslide victory under Venezuela's "superior" system too!

 

50% more seats for 1% more votes!

 

(I think you'll need to choose between reflexively supporting Venezuela, and credibility on this one).

 

If you'll notice, PPT won 3% of the vote and still have 2 seats in Venezuela's Parliament. UNder our very undemocratic and corrupt electoral system in Bananada, the mathematically absurd FPTP system simply shuts-out democratic voices of parties winning nearly 7% of the popular vote. How democratic, you say.

As I was saying before,  our corrupt stooges here would never support such a modern system that entrusts so much choice to the electorate on a whole. So you're not arguing from a POV that makes any sense for the corrupt stoogeaucracy or the vicious empire still relying on a 19th century electoral system to rig elections with money in politics and bad math right here in North America, the last safe bastion for right wing conservatism in the world.

You have no argument. Give over.

Snert Snert's picture

I'm not arguing that Canada's system is good, or great.  I'm arguing that based on their pretty skewed results, Venezuela's isn't any better. 

50% more seats for 1% more votes, and you're insisting that that's good? 

Gee, let's adopt that same system, so our own stooges can have half again as many seats for one one-hundredth more popular vote.  How many seats would that have given Harper?

Fidel

I'm sorry but there are always two sides to every election rigging story involving the American CIA and friends.

I notice you've said nothing about the US-backed military coup against Chavez, and nothing about US taxpayers funding the political opposition in Venezuela.

Where are your democratic principles now? Remember those?

Was the CIA's abduction of Haiti's first democratically elected president a democratic thing to do as well?

Your only concern here seems to be that the Yanks and their rich friends in Caracas can't rig elections properly in Venezuela.

Because if that's all you're worried about, then TTFN.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

The Venezuelan opposition will be glad to know that the US government will continue to fund them.

Obama requests funding for Venezuelan opposition in 2012 budget

Quote:
The US government is setting the terrain for the 2012 presidential elections in Venezuela, soliciting funding to back anti-Chavez groups and help prepare a "candidate" to oppose Chavez. Republicans call for an "embargo" against the oil-producing nation....

For the first time in recent history, the Foreign Operations Budget (State Department) openly details direct funding of at least $5 million to anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela.

In the US itself, such actions are considered illegal and those involved would be arrested for acting as the agent of a foreign power.

Quote:
The State Department's public disclosure of 2012 funding for the Venezuelan opposition comes just after the Venezuelan National Assembly passed a law prohibiting foreign funding for political activities in late December 2010. The Law in Defense of Political Sovereignty and National Self-Determination clearly renders all foreign funding for political campaigns, parties and organizations, including NGOs, that engage in political activities, illegal.

So, how will the Yanqui imperial beast solve the problem?

Quote:
Clearly, funding and political support for the Venezuelan opposition has now been given a top priority and will be handled directly by the State Department.

The funds requested in the State Department's budget for 2012 most likely will be directed towards political campaigns, since Venezuela has both key presidential and regional elections that year.

Ah, that's how. Directly run by the State Department or the mouthpiece of Sauron. Good to know.

 

 

trippie

Well you know Venezuela, leaving the capitalist in their place always just lets them regain their strangth. Bad ideas always have to be discredited fro the get go.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Rember the gravy years in Canada during the cold war when communist parties didn't have to worry about funds because the USSR sent them millions of dollars to fund ongoing propoganda campaigns and elections. 

Fidel

I think Venezuela's MMP is still a work in progress. In the years prior to Chavez, the rich managed to steal a lot of land in the country sides from the poor who were given deeds under the socialists. Since then the poor are mostly huddled masses in the cities barrios. 

MMP there is still better than Harper and McGuinty winning government here with just 22% of the eligible vote. In McGuinty's case the 100% dictatorial rule is more obvious without having to have the other wing of the party propping them up.

Ken Burch

Snert wrote:

Well, there's the conundrum of the day.

Capitalists and their evil ilk propose privatization to "fleece" the people... and yet the people don't seem to feel fleeced, and give their approval at the ballot box.  Now what??

 

 

It's not like the right-wing beat the chavistas in Venezuela, snert.  And some of the "opposition" vote went to left parties that would, we can assume, oppose the privatizations.

So quit acting as if Harper would get a majority there.

Fidel

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Rember the gravy years in Canada during the cold war when communist parties didn't have to worry about funds because the USSR sent them millions of dollars to fund ongoing propoganda campaigns and elections. 

 

If they had done that during the cold war, it would have been considered an act of war by our stooges and their masters in Washington. 

While our politicos puffed up their chests and spoke out a little against apartheid and a few thousand shot climbing over a wall in Berlin, our stooges in Ottawa said nothing of hundreds of thousands of indigenous and other people in Latin America who were slaughtered at the hands of brutal US-backed right wing dictatorships. And their friends the Nazis helped them spy on the Sovs after WW II and committed other crimes against peace which also had nothing to do with democracy.

Fidel

ha ha, Harper wouldn't have a look-in under a real electoral system. He'd be yesterday's man on the double-double! He'd be wondering why the people would be refusing to listen to his dictatorial crap.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Northern Shoveler wrote:
Rember the gravy years in Canada during the cold war when communist parties didn't have to worry about funds because the USSR sent them millions of dollars to fund ongoing propoganda campaigns and elections. 

I don't know about any other country, but the Soviets helped the Canadian CP by buying many copies of their paper, at full price, and selling it in Kiosks from Moscow to Vladivostok. Anything more than that is probably just Cold War fiction as Fidel has outlined.

Fidel

Yes, the Soviet countries were not a threat for world domination as the propagandists led the world to believe. They were merely a group of developing countries trying to exist outside a very undemocratic western world whose corrupt leaders only pretended to believe in free trade and democratic principles. Most of the time the Russians traded and bartered at a net loss with other developing nations like Cuba, Vietnam, and the very tragic Cambodia and North Korea. The Sovs shipped oil and raw materials and humanitarian aid in exchange for whatever those countries could afford to give back. If it was unsustainable in the long run, it was only because the other two-thirds of the freely trading world needed democratizing as well. We need a system designed around the needs of the large majority of human beings and living things in general not corporations and a handful of superrich people. The struggle for democracy continues.

Ken Burch

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Rember the gravy years in Canada during the cold war when communist parties didn't have to worry about funds because the USSR sent them millions of dollars to fund ongoing propoganda campaigns and elections. 

given the electoral showings of the CPC and CPUSA in the Cold War era, I don't think Moscow got much bang for its North American ruble.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

If its' "bang for your buck" that is really important then maybe you should look at US funding of Contras in Nicaragua (and similar undertakings).

Fidel

And don't forget ol' Chiang Kai-shek who they supported. His KMT gangsters murdered ten million Chinese before fleeing the country. Some of those guys split for Burma after 1949 and dealt in drugs and weapons for years with the CIA's helping hand. Maoists chased Chiang and the rest of his outfit to the island of Formosa(Taiwan). Chiang's WACL was funelling money to the contras and other right wing mercenary groups around the world long time.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:
Rember the gravy years in Canada during the cold war when communist parties didn't have to worry about funds because the USSR sent them millions of dollars to fund ongoing propoganda campaigns and elections. 

I don't know about any other country, but the Soviets helped the Canadian CP by buying many copies of their paper, at full price, and selling it in Kiosks from Moscow to Vladivostok. Anything more than that is probably just Cold War fiction as Fidel has outlined.

Does nobody have a sense of humour?  

Ken Burch

N.Beltov wrote:

If its' "bang for your buck" that is really important then maybe you should look at US funding of Contras in Nicaragua (and similar undertakings).

I always opposed U.S. funding for the Contras and the entire Reagan foreign policy agenda.  What does THAT have to do with my observation that, whatever intentions the Soviet Union may have had in funding the CPC and the CPUSA, those parties didn't end up having any political impact at all in the countries in which they were operating?

Fidel

How long would capitalism last without the government spending more than half of annual budgets on over-bloated nuclear armed military and anywhere from 700 to 1000 military bases and communications installations around the world? They have hundreds of bases in Afghanistan today alone and many more globally in countries where, apparently, the people can't be trusted with democracy.

Capitalism requires full force of the state for not just putting down popular peoples rebellions in US client states but at home as well. Without the US Military, very many more Americans would be unemployed and desperate. 

Soviet communism lasted 70 years in what was about a third of the world. 

Capitalism, OTOH, has failed in various world experiments dating back to 14th century Italy. Laissez-faire capitalism in America lasted just 30 years to 1929. It was rejected by Americans in 1930s elections. And the "new" liberal capitalism is already on its knees, from 1980 to 2008 and staggering along under unprecedented corruption in US Government. And it's not like they did not realize what the results might be after watching the first experiment in neoliberal ideology fail spectacularly in Pinochet's Chile.

The US economic system is essentially bankrupt. The billionaire oligarchy are feeding on the corpse of US capitalism today. It's finished. Americans today are struggling against fascism and so is much of the rest of the world as a result.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
It's not like the right-wing beat the chavistas in Venezuela, snert. And some of the "opposition" vote went to left parties that would, we can assume, oppose the privatizations.

So quit acting as if Harper would get a majority there.

Sorry to be unclear. I was more referring to us than the people of Venezuela (who I've no doubt would have zero time for Stephen Harper).

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Snert wrote:

I'm not arguing that Canada's system is good, or great.  I'm arguing that based on their pretty skewed results, Venezuela's isn't any better. 

50% more seats for 1% more votes, and you're insisting that that's good? 

Gee, let's adopt that same system, so our own stooges can have half again as many seats for one one-hundredth more popular vote.  How many seats would that have given Harper?

 

Dude, WTF, your comparing us to Venezuala?  Which you have all contempt for?

 

If you position from an honest position, I'll engage you?...

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Northern Shoveler wrote:

N.Beltov wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:
Rember the gravy years in Canada during the cold war when communist parties didn't have to worry about funds because the USSR sent them millions of dollars to fund ongoing propoganda campaigns and elections. 

I don't know about any other country, but the Soviets helped the Canadian CP by buying many copies of their paper, at full price, and selling it in Kiosks from Moscow to Vladivostok. Anything more than that is probably just Cold War fiction as Fidel has outlined.

Does nobody have a sense of humour?  

Claims of "Moscow gold" were treated as serious and used to justify all sorts of repression ... including the banning of the CP for the third time, etc., etc., etc... I can't imagine any of that was amusing to people who were black-listed, lost their jobs, and so on.

Perhaps you should add the tongue in cheek icon or something. Wink

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Ken - I just picked up on your rather poor choice of a variation on "bang for your buck" when, as we all know, supporting organized acts of violence is all too common in the history of US "aid" in their foreign policy.

Ken Burch

I know that full well.  And I wasn't implying that Soviet funding for the CPC or the CPUSA was as horrific as U.S. funding for the Contras or the rest of what my country's imperial leaders have done.

I just meant they didn't seem to get much value for money.  OK?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Apparently, I need to lighten up.

Fidel

This gives us an idea of what the cold war propaganda machine was like at home: [url=http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Norman_Solomon/Fourth_Estate_USNS.html... Estate or Fourth Branch of Government?[/url]

excerpted from the book Unreliable Sources

Quote:
Back in the United States, the CIA set in motion the Crusade for Freedom, a multimillion-dollar PR project which served as a domestic counterpart to the Agency's global propaganda effort. As such, it constituted a violation of the National Security Act of 1947, which explicitly prohibited the CIA from engaging in domestic propaganda activity. Designed to mobilize public opinion in support of the government's Cold War policies, this exercise in mind control depended on the cooperation of big media personalities in the United States. It was rather convenient that people like Henry Luce of Time-Life, C.D. Jackson of Fortune, and Eugene Lyons of Reader's Digest sat on the board of directors of the National Committee for a Free Europe (NCFE), which functioned as a thinly-veiled private-sector cover for channeling funds to neo-Nazi emigre groups intent on "liberating" their homeland. Other NCFE board members included CIA director Allen Dulles and former OSS chief William "Wild Bill" Donovan.

The Dulles brothers were the face of US shadow government evil for many years as was the likes of E. Howard Hunt who orchestrated dirty tricks, foreign assassinations, and sometimes invasions of small Latin American countries in order to prevent outbreaks of communism in this hemisphere. I think it was the National Security Act which led to creation of the cold war era CIA, previously the OSS. And the NSA is supposed to collect information on foreign militaries, but today their prime directive seems to be spying on the lives of millions of Americans with technical assistance from private telcos.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

Dude, WTF, your comparing us to Venezuala?  Which you have all contempt for?

 

I'll compare anything to anything! I'm wild and untamed like that.

 

Anyway, Fidel seems to be indulging in some fantasy wherein Venezuela has a "real" electoral system (his words) as compared to ours.

 

I'm just pointing out, using actual results, that that's not the case. When you get 32 more seats than your opponent because you got 1% more of the popular vote, something in the milk ain't clean.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:

N.Beltov wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:
Rember the gravy years in Canada during the cold war when communist parties didn't have to worry about funds because the USSR sent them millions of dollars to fund ongoing propoganda campaigns and elections. 

I don't know about any other country, but the Soviets helped the Canadian CP by buying many copies of their paper, at full price, and selling it in Kiosks from Moscow to Vladivostok. Anything more than that is probably just Cold War fiction as Fidel has outlined.

Does nobody have a sense of humour?  

Claims of "Moscow gold" were treated as serious and used to justify all sorts of repression ... including the banning of the CP for the third time, etc., etc., etc... I can't imagine any of that was amusing to people who were black-listed, lost their jobs, and so on.

Perhaps you should add the tongue in cheek icon or something. Wink

I know that history well and I wish there was a tongue in check emoticon.  Socialist and communist ideas in Canada were brutally repressed after WWII.  In fact the mere suggestion that there were any funds coming into Canada from communist countries was treated by the MSM as treason. 

Somehow it is anti-democratic for Venezuela's government to be against American money funding their political parties? Snert you can sure be a contortionist on some issues.  If you didn't hate all things socialist you would have an easier time with consistency on democracy issues.  You know like if it is anti-democratic to allow corporations to buy our elections it is also anti-democratic for corporation to buy election in countries where their are socialist governments.  

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
 If you didn't hate all things socialist you would have an easier time with consistency on democracy issues.

 

I don't hate all things socialist. I just don't make a special category for things socialist. They don't get any freebies from me for being socialist.

 

For his second referendum, Hugo Chavez felt empowered to plaster voting stations with "Si!" ads. That seems to me to be an inappropriate use of state privelege that we would never forgive Harper for, but people looked the other way when Chavez did it, I presume because of socialism. I'm not going to grant them a special exclusion for something like that. Is that hate?

 

Quote:
 You know like if it is anti-democratic to allow corporations to buy our elections it is also anti-democratic for corporation to buy election in countries where their are socialist governments. 

 

I don't believe that corporations "buy elections". Last time I voted, I was free to vote for anyone I wanted to. Weren't you? If corporations bought my vote, they got ripped off. Did you vote the way they wanted you to? 

 

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Snert wrote:

I don't believe that corporations "buy elections". Last time I voted, I was free to vote for anyone I wanted to. Weren't you? If corporations bought my vote, they got ripped off. Did you vote the way they wanted you to? 

I don't believe corporations waste money on advertising I think they advertise because it works. A large part of our economy is based on ad revenue, especially the media.  You are ACTUALLY telling me that none of it works?  

Your definition of freedom sometimes seems to line up with corporate propaganda, like in this case, so I think some of it even works on you.  I hear the message loud and clear,  "there is nothing to fear from corporations they are a benevolent force in our political realm."

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Well done Snert! You've managed to circambulate around the whole issue of illegal foreign intervention in Venezuelan politcal life by the US militarist regime. Give yourself 5 imperialist brownie points.

Now, to make your score really add up, please try to forget the name of the American public figure - very involved in the "election" of Bush - who called for the assassination of the President of Venezuela. Here's a hint of the name you want to forget: he's a highly "moral" conservative public figure.

lol.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
I don't believe corporations waste money on advertising I think they advertise because it works. A large part of our economy is based on ad revenue, especially the media.  You are ACTUALLY telling me that none of it works?

 

Are you eating a Big Mac while writing this? If not then I guess it works on everyone else, but you've developed a special immunity and are a free thinker, yes?

 

I've met lots of people who think advertising suckers us, but when pressed, none will ever admit to being fooled by a catchy jingle.

 

I'm betting that when voting, you believe you're voting using your brain, yes? Will you grant that same assumption to others?

Slumberjack

Snert wrote:
For his second referendum, Hugo Chavez felt empowered to plaster voting stations with "Si!" ads. That seems to me to be an inappropriate use of state privelege that we would never forgive Harper for, but people looked the other way when Chavez did it, I presume because of socialism. I'm not going to grant them a special exclusion for something like that. Is that hate?

I don't believe that corporations "buy elections". Last time I voted, I was free to vote for anyone I wanted to. Weren't you? If corporations bought my vote, they got ripped off. Did you vote the way they wanted you to? 

Having the latitude of untainted national sovereignty with which to decide ones representation is the key toward best practices when it comes to exercising ones democratic rights. Elections after all are supposed to be a discussion between those seeking to represent the citizens, and the citizens themselves. It's quite distracting to engage in such an intimate discussion when someone with an insistent and unannounced agenda arrives on the scene and commences to shove cash stuffed envelopes into the back pockets of the prospective candidates.

As for commentary regarding how other countries should conduct their democratic elections, including those observations which suggest that some of them don't seem to stack up very well against our more desirable levels of ‘honesty and accountability,' one can only describe such missives as the residual product of a corporatized, imperialist mindset that continues to believe it knows best for other nations.

And finally, in this day and age where we can see and hear the mindfucked tea party faithful by simply calling them up on YouTube, or listen to their equally mind fucked representatives speak anywhere at all, curiosity and marvel are among the mildest words that could be used in describing someone who still maintains that corporate money, with its expensive and pervasive media apparatus, doesn't influence popular opinion.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I watch my neighbours buy and soon throw out mounds of useless plastic junk.  If you think advertising does not work that is your opinion.  I assume that propaganda exists because it is capable of swaying public opinion.  That is not an indictment of any one else just an observation.  I think people destroying our planet with throw away junk also believe they are using their brains to allocate their scarce resources.   Why is this analysis of Venezuela not carried over by you into your analysis of countries under the IMF thumb?  Many of them allow complete privatization and the places where that agenda has been in place since the 80's are the places that now have the people rising in the streets.  

You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.  Such a radical opinion, eh?  I prefer to not allow corporations to fool any of the people any of the time.  That is democracy to me. Allowing corporations and their shadow owners  to con as many sheep as they can with unlimited advertising dollars is a con game.  I just don't understand why you can't see the obvious con.  It is guaranteed to fool some of the people, the only question is how many. I think marketeers would tell you one of the factors in a marketing campaign's success is the extent of the advertising buy.  Unlimited funds for one brand and limited funds for another works to sell all kinds of shitty consumer throw away products.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
I watch my neighbours buy and soon throw out mounds of useless plastic junk.  If you think advertising does not work that is your opinion.

 

LOL!

 

Just like I noted. It works on "them". But you're special, right? Or else where are the "me" statements in your post?

 

Quote:

As for commentary regarding how other countries should conduct their democratic elections, including those observations which suggest that some of them don't seem to stack up very well against our more desirable levels of 'honesty and accountability,' one can only describe such missives as the residual product of a corporatized, imperialist mindset that continues to believe it knows best for other nations.

\

 

Coulda used that kind of respectful distance after the U.S. elections in 2004, eh? I'm betting a lot of people inappropriately commented on the legitimacy of those elections, including a lot of people here (yourself excluded of course... I know you don't have the kind of imperialist mindset needed to cross that boundary).

Slumberjack

Snert wrote:
Coulda used that kind of respectful distance after the U.S. elections in 2004, eh? I'm betting a lot of people inappropriately commented on the legitimacy of those elections, including a lot of people here (yourself excluded of course... I know you don't have the kind of imperialist mindset needed to cross that boundary).

With imperialism, actions which defend against it, or dialogue which describes its potential to spread like the inhuman plague that it is, is somewhat different than running at the mouth against people in other countries who at long last finally get a taste of what democracy is all about.  The US purports to represent the interests of the so called 'free western world' without putting the question of this leadership at our disposal for a vote.  The least we should retain for ourselves as the represented in that regard is the ability to speak amongst one another on the matter.  The US empire's vicious tentacles reach far and wide after all.  Venezuela's?...not so much.

Snert Snert's picture

I really need that rolly-eyed smiley right about now.

Discussing electoral interference in another country is far from imperialism, and your spirited little rationalization for why discussing electoral interference in the United States is magically different is weak.  I think you just don't want to have to live by your own principle.  Imagine, if we couldn't bloviate freely and at length about U.S. elections!  Other than cutting babble's bandwidth costs in half on leap years, where would that leave us?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Why, it would leave us reading YOUR bloviations much more than we currently do. Win win all around. Laughing

Snert Snert's picture

That was the plan.  And I'd have got away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!!

voice of the damned

Slumberjack wrote:

"The US empire's vicious tentacles reach far and wide after all.  Venezuela's?...not so much."

So, then, I guess there's no rationale for discussing Swiss elections(like for example the recent one where they voted to outlaw Muslim minarets), because Switzerland doesn't have very extensive imperial tentacles, and in fact is pretty much the polar opposite of an empire(what with being neutral for centuries and never having any overseas territories).

And if Ireland continues to elect governments that maintain the total ban on abortion, well, no reason for us to comment on that, Ireland doesn't claim to be leading the free world, and those laws effect no one outside of Ireland.

Snert Snert's picture

Just to note:  this thread is intended for a discussion of the Venezuelan opposition party, isn't it?

But we shouldn't discuss Venezuela in it.  That's just inappropriate.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Snert wrote:

Well, there's the conundrum of the day.

Capitalists and their evil ilk propose privatization to "fleece" the people... and yet the people don't seem to feel fleeced, and give their approval at the ballot box.  Now what??

Kind of makes me think of "The Greatest Canadian"... remember that?  Lots of people voting for Tommy Douglas and Norman Bethune and Pierre Trudeau and such, and then someone had to come along and vote for Don Cherry.  Don!  Cherry!

The nerve of people, misusing their free will to want something they shouldn't want!  Everyone deserves a voice, but not if they're going to waste it on stupid beliefs and attitudes!!  That's not what freedom is for!

Anyway, I guess the huge worry here is that if the opposition can propose something like privatization, the people might actually decide they want that.  Is that it?

Bait and switch much Snert.  At post #4 you introduced the drift and at #48 you feign offence at the thread drift.  It seems that if you run out of distractions you merely try to chance the channel even when you tuned it in, in the first place.

Laughing

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
and at #48 you feign offence at the thread drift.

 

Yes, I'm being facetious.

Pages

Topic locked