I was thinking of someone more along the lines of Pinochet.
Advertisement
by Estado Nacional » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:16 pm
by Anglo-California » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:17 pm
by True American States » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:20 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:i don't know you, but I suspect on some level, you're an actual conservative, not one of the ragbag of gun nuts, arch-reactionaries, fringe politics aficionados, and anarcho-capitalists hijacking the term nowadays.
Terstotzka wrote:Bit fancy, bit cool, But still pretty American :p
by Republic of Coldwater » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:24 pm
Estado Nacional wrote:Republic of Coldwater wrote:Then explain to me why he isn't a true free marketer and why he isn't a Libertarian.
Well, first of all, he opposes free trade agreements with other countries, he thinks they're 'unconstitutional' or something. Few ideas are more fundamental to libertarianism than free trade. He also opposed school voucher programs. Furthermore, he's a hardcore nativist who wants immigration to be reduced and all illegal immigrants deported. The freedom to choose where you live and the right to move to a freer and more prosperous society are among the most important of all libertarian principles. He's also against abortion. For Christ's sake, he wants to impose criminal penalties on women who terminate their pregnancies.
Libertarianism, is a philosophy which shares a deep love for liberties in society. The libertarian view point respects different liberties and does not believe in abrogating the rights of immigrants or a woman’s right to choose. Some of his views are laudable, but to say Ron Paul is a libertarian is just ridiculous.
by Estado Nacional » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:29 pm
Republic of Coldwater wrote:He supports free trade, but he doesn't think that the state should agree with other nations just to have free trade. He wants the government out of trade entirely.
Republic of Coldwater wrote:He opposes these federal voucher programs as he doesn't believe that they are constitutional, and that education should be left to the local or state level.
Republic of Coldwater wrote:And no, he isn't a hardcore nativist. I don't know who gave people the notion of such a thing, but he doesn't support deporting the illegals or reducing immigration. He supports legal immigration, but also supports securing the border and not giving amnesty to illegals, which isn't unlibertarian, as being Libertarian doesn't mean that you have to oppose the rule of law.
Republic of Coldwater wrote:He is against abortion except for extreme circumstances because of the fact that it is effectively murder.
by Anglo-California » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:30 pm
Estado Nacional wrote:Republic of Coldwater wrote:He supports free trade, but he doesn't think that the state should agree with other nations just to have free trade. He wants the government out of trade entirely.
So that's why he voted against all FTAs as a congressman? Seems extremely counterproductive.Republic of Coldwater wrote:He opposes these federal voucher programs as he doesn't believe that they are constitutional, and that education should be left to the local or state level.
That doesn't really make any sense, though.Republic of Coldwater wrote:And no, he isn't a hardcore nativist. I don't know who gave people the notion of such a thing, but he doesn't support deporting the illegals or reducing immigration. He supports legal immigration, but also supports securing the border and not giving amnesty to illegals, which isn't unlibertarian, as being Libertarian doesn't mean that you have to oppose the rule of law.
Yes, it is 'unlibertarian'. Libertarianism states that a free market requires the free movement of both capital and labor across borders.Republic of Coldwater wrote:He is against abortion except for extreme circumstances because of the fact that it is effectively murder.
No, it isn't.
by Estado Nacional » Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:26 am
Anglo-California wrote:This is why I stopped being a libertarian on many issues. It's irreconcilable with nationalism.
by Informationland » Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:15 am
by Estado Nacional » Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:26 am
Calimera II wrote:A lot of Western Media groups however, continuously lies about the situation in Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Uruguay.
by Calimera II » Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:28 am
''Chávez has asserted numerous times that US government officials knew about plans for a coup, approved of them, and assumed they would be successful. Chávez also further alleged that "two military officers from the United States" were present in the headquarters of coup plotters. Rear Admiral Carlos Molina, a central leader of the coup, later said that "We felt we were acting with US support... we agree that we can’t permit a communist government here. The US has not let us down yet."
In December 2004, the New York Times reported on the release of newly declassified intelligence documents that showed that the CIA and Bush administration officials had advanced knowledge of an imminent plot to oust President Chavez. The documents indicated the who, the what, the where, the when, and the how, stating that, the plotters, "disgruntled senior officers and a group of radical junior officers", would try to "exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations slated for later this month" in an attempt to provoke military action.''
Costa Fierro wrote:It isn't that simple. Venezuela borders Colombia, and Colombia has some of the most violent cartels in the world. Some of those cartels crossed the border and settled in Venezuela. Moreover, the opposition's province (Miranda) is the most insecure of the country.(Image)
Colombia has nothing to do with it. All the drug cartels have not moved to Venezuela but Peru, where the government there has less influence in the interior than Venezuela or Colombia does (and where there is prime coca growing territory also). Colombian cartels have no interest in Venezuela. Not to mention that those organizations which produce cocaine that still remain in Colombia are either in hiding or negotiating with the government (FARC).
Costa Fierro wrote:However, you know where the violence comes from? Same as Colombia these days. Street gangs, many of which have access to a large amount of illicit firearms which are present in Venezuela.
Costa Fierro wrote:You are simplifying things waaaay to much.
I'm not. That's the situation in Venezuela. Where the government plays down or denies the seriousness of the situation.
Costa Fierro wrote:And Colombia, Guatemala and lots of other countries in the northern part of South America are even more dangerous.
Colombian cities are actually seeing a decrease in murders and other violent crimes. I also never said that Venezuela was the most dangerous country. I'm saying it's one of the most dangerous.
Costa Fierro wrote:Absolutely true. But this has more to do with Maduro than with Chavez.
No. The rot set in under Chavez and Maduro has failed to treat it.
Costa Fierro wrote:Maduro saw a little bird in a chapel, while praying. And he ''felt'' the presence of Chavez. He never said that Chavez talked to him whatsoever. Here you have the original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsNTljd4DsU
The bird appeared to him again.
Costa Fierro wrote:Absolutely not true.
You seem to be denying a lot of things. Have a look through the Venezuelan military and marvel at the new equipment they have.
Ardoki wrote:I thank you for trying to provide the correct information. However I tired to do that earlier this year in the Maduro thread, but he just rejects all evidence and sources, and then makes incorrect statements either without any evidence of only unreliable sources. It's best not to debate with him, lest you get angry and waste a lot of time.
by Chestaan » Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:31 am
Laerod wrote:Chestaan wrote:
I'm not saying I don't believe you, but do you have a source? Genuinely just would like to read about this.
He gave Suarez a hero's welcome after the latter got sanctioned for undeniably biting Chiellini.
by Alyakia » Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:32 am
Of course it isn't. You are unaware of the fact that Chavez' policies were favoring national interests, and not the interests of the American Oil companies and of America. Chavez wanted to make Venezuela sovereign, and the United States wanted to prevent that. When Chavez talked about nationalizing the nation's Oil Industry (that at that time wasn't beneficial for Venezuela, because revenues went straight to the US), the US backed a coup against him.
by Calimera II » Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:47 am
Alyakia wrote:Of course it isn't. You are unaware of the fact that Chavez' policies were favoring national interests, and not the interests of the American Oil companies and of America. Chavez wanted to make Venezuela sovereign, and the United States wanted to prevent that. When Chavez talked about nationalizing the nation's Oil Industry (that at that time wasn't beneficial for Venezuela, because revenues went straight to the US), the US backed a coup against him.
who are you and what did you do with the real calimera
by Costa Fierro » Wed Dec 17, 2014 4:39 am
Calimera II wrote:Of course it isn't. You are unaware of the fact that Chavez' policies were favoring national interests, and not the interests of the American Oil companies and of America.
The US' actions were absolutely inappropriate, and as a democrat you should accept and recognize that.
That Oil Strike plunged millions of Venezuelans into poverty. And Chavez successfully reduced poverty from 61,1% to 30%.
Foreign Interests in Venezuela have been Venezuela's cancer, not Chavez.
False.
Yes, I know where the violence comes from, and I have provided sources. Those street gangs you are talking about have indeed a large amount of illicit firearms. And you know where the money came from? With the money they earned from drugs trafficking.
Of course you are. First of all you deny the fact that Colombian Drug Cartels have moved to Venezuela, and secondly, you blame everything on the government of Chavez.
Well, that's logical due to the fact that the Colombia Government and the FARC are having peace negotiations.
Furthermore, like the UN report stated: Cartels are moving activity to Venezuela.
The Venezuelan government, at least under Chavez', did quite a lot to prevent that and to stop these gangs. Of course, more can be done. But blaming everything on Chavez is somewhat childish if you ask me.
I think I provided you with enough sources last time to show you how much it improved.
Nevertheless, I will show them another time.
False.
All the figures improved during Chavez' presidency.
You simply don't want to accept that. Maduro is absolute garbage, and Chavez was somewhat autocratic, but to say that it set to rot under Chavez is absolutely bullshit and you know it very well.
What a load of bullshit.
Maduro doesn't have a mental illness whatsoever.
Maduro just (always actually) uses anecdotes and stories to tell what he thinks, feels etc. It is weird, but that's all. He doesn't believe that Chavez is a bird whatsoever.
No, you seem to denying a lot of things.
You said that Chavez used the ''oil money'' to solely invest in the Military. Something which is bullshit. I have provided sources etc that proves me right, here you have another one. Military expenses in 2013 were even lower than Argentina's. You can also clearly see that in percentageof GDP that Venezuela ranks lower than Bolivia, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and other countries.
No, I am here to debunk lies.
Ardoki wrote:I thank you for trying to provide the correct information.
However I tired to do that earlier this year in the Maduro thread, but he just rejects all evidence and sources, and then makes incorrect statements either without any evidence of only unreliable sources.
It's best not to debate with him, lest you get angry and waste a lot of time.
by Harkback Union » Thu Dec 18, 2014 6:47 am
Costa Fierro wrote:Calimera II wrote:Of course it isn't. You are unaware of the fact that Chavez' policies were favoring national interests, and not the interests of the American Oil companies and of America.
Except that there weren't any American oil companies in there to have any vested interests in. Most of the companies producing oil were Venezuelan and were nationalized by the government.The US' actions were absolutely inappropriate, and as a democrat you should accept and recognize that.
And where did I say I support the coup? Or is it because you've finally jumped the ideological ship that you all of a sudden decide to accuse people by association? How about you get off that hobby horse and address me on your own two feet and we'll see who is the right one here.That Oil Strike plunged millions of Venezuelans into poverty. And Chavez successfully reduced poverty from 61,1% to 30%.
That's interesting. Because poverty was at 49% when Chavez came into office and it was at 24% when he died. How can 20% of the population magically plunge into povertyForeign Interests in Venezuela have been Venezuela's cancer, not Chavez.
"Foreign interests" is the sort of propaganda people like Chavez use to justify their actions. "Foreign interests" are like "imperialists" or "communists". Boogeymen that are used to scare people into believing that the government is doing the right thing.False.
When will you learn? It's not. Venezuela has an average of two firearms per citizen and most of the crime is committed by gangs, many of which were released from prison during Chavez's prison reforms.
You couple that to a country where the law enforcement system is corrupt and largely inept and you have the reason why Venezuela's violent crime rate is through the roof. It's not Colombian drug cartels and organized crime, it's violent street gangs killing and kidnapping people knowing that they can get away with it.Yes, I know where the violence comes from, and I have provided sources. Those street gangs you are talking about have indeed a large amount of illicit firearms. And you know where the money came from? With the money they earned from drugs trafficking.
Nope. Kidnapping. Venezuela now has one of the highest numbers of kidnappings in the world. Again, most kidnappings are committed by street gangs. Aside from police corruption, most people in Venezuela pay the ransoms and often don't report kidnappings to police. People actually put money aside in "kidnap kitties" to pay off the kidnappers if someone they know is taken.
And with that in mind, what do you think brings in the most money? Drugs, where you have a greater risk of being caught by police? Or kidnappings, where you are guaranteed a ransom payment?Of course you are. First of all you deny the fact that Colombian Drug Cartels have moved to Venezuela, and secondly, you blame everything on the government of Chavez.
Because Chavez has done little, if anything, to address the serious situation in Venezuela. The government does not report on violent crime statistics. Sometimes they are leaked to press but they are officially redacted. He more than anyone had the power to reform the police and expand police powers and funding to crack down on criminal street gangs. He had the power to launch a war against corruption. All of these would have made significant differences and made Venezuela a much safer place to be. But he didn't.
The government is to blame because it is the one sitting on its hands and not addressing the very serious problems in Venezuela. It either pretends there are no problems or blames it on something else, such as whatever the government has decided to demonize that particular week (usually the middle class). As I said, the government certainly has the power to actually make a difference and it hasn't used that power. You can't sit there and say "it's out of their hands" because it isn't.
Look at neighboring Colombia. Violent crime in Colombia is at a 10 year low and most cities have seen reductions of 80%. You know why? Because the government made the cities safer. It integrated the poorer suburbs. It actively fought against gangs and against organized crime and it paid off. Colombia is much safer than it used to be.Well, that's logical due to the fact that the Colombia Government and the FARC are having peace negotiations.
Those negotiations would not have been necessary if the Colombian government hadn't put FARC on its knees. That's what drove FARC to the negotiating table because it knew that there was negotiating and ending the conflict with some dignity or being utterly destroyed.Furthermore, like the UN report stated: Cartels are moving activity to Venezuela.
Nope. The cartels are setting up shop in Peru.The Venezuelan government, at least under Chavez', did quite a lot to prevent that and to stop these gangs. Of course, more can be done. But blaming everything on Chavez is somewhat childish if you ask me.
The government hasn't done anything. Why else has there been such a massive rise in violent crime? If the government was actively trying to fight the criminals, there would have at least been some results. Instead, murders and kidnappings are increasing with each year.
Either you are saying the government is hilariously inept or your argument is bullshit and the government has done absolutely nothing to fight criminalsI think I provided you with enough sources last time to show you how much it improved.
You are trying to argue against the rise in violent crime by saying "I showed you some shit that it totally irrelevant to your argument".Nevertheless, I will show them another time.
And I'll show you this another time.False.
Oh? So, everything was fine until Chavez died and Maduro showed up and suddenly, everything went down the proverbial crapper? That's one hell of a collapse.All the figures improved during Chavez' presidency.
The only thing that improved during Chavez's presidency was poverty. Unless of course you call 24,000 murder victims an "improvement".You simply don't want to accept that. Maduro is absolute garbage, and Chavez was somewhat autocratic, but to say that it set to rot under Chavez is absolutely bullshit and you know it very well.
I accept that some aspects of Chavez's administration were good. I've never denied that. But what I see here is people blatantly white washing some pretty serious social and economic issues. "Oh well, it's not that bad". 24,000 murder victims a year is pretty bad. Add 16,000 kidnapping victims and we pretty much have recipe for a failed state.What a load of bullshit.
So first, he talks to birds and then he doesn't. What is it Cal.Maduro doesn't have a mental illness whatsoever.
Of course not. Believing animals are talking to oneself is indicative of a healthy state of mind.Maduro just (always actually) uses anecdotes and stories to tell what he thinks, feels etc. It is weird, but that's all. He doesn't believe that Chavez is a bird whatsoever.
Believing that birds are talking to him is the same level of crazy as people saying that Jesus spoke to them.No, you seem to denying a lot of things.
Oh good. Now we're using the "no you" ploy.You said that Chavez used the ''oil money'' to solely invest in the Military. Something which is bullshit. I have provided sources etc that proves me right, here you have another one. Military expenses in 2013 were even lower than Argentina's. You can also clearly see that in percentageof GDP that Venezuela ranks lower than Bolivia, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and other countries.
Annual spending may be low, but this was done over a period of a decade. The Venezuelan military has essentially been rearmed. And that military equipment doesn't come cheap, even if it is Russian.No, I am here to debunk lies.
No hay mentiras aquí.Ardoki wrote:I thank you for trying to provide the correct information.
Oh for the love of Christ. If whitewashing serious problems in Venezuela is "correct" then call me incorrect. Or bigoted. Or offensive. You know, because apparently pointing out that Venezuela under Chavez wasn't a box of fluffy rabbits is apparently being bigoted.However I tired to do that earlier this year in the Maduro thread, but he just rejects all evidence and sources, and then makes incorrect statements either without any evidence of only unreliable sources.
I don't reject all evidence and sources. I am fully aware of the improvements that have been made in Venezuela under Chavez's administration. But unlike your or Cal, I'm fully aware of the other aspects of his administration which have not as of yet can be deemed "successes" and which affect all aspects of Venezuelan society, not just the rich or the poor.
People in Venezuela fear for their lives and the government isn't helping them. If you don't want to believe it, fine. That's your own little bubble and I'm not prepared to go out of my way to burst it.It's best not to debate with him, lest you get angry and waste a lot of time.
I'm not a troll Ardoki. At least try to debate instead of simply brushing it off by calling it "offensive" or "bigoted". Because you know what's offensive to Venezuelans? "Everything is fine".
by The Liberated Territories » Thu Dec 18, 2014 6:50 am
by Calimera II » Thu Dec 18, 2014 7:45 am
Costa Fierro wrote:Calimera II wrote:Of course it isn't. You are unaware of the fact that Chavez' policies were favoring national interests, and not the interests of the American Oil companies and of America.
Except that there weren't any American oil companies in there to have any vested interests in. Most of the companies producing oil were Venezuelan and were nationalized by the government.
Costa Fierro wrote:The US' actions were absolutely inappropriate, and as a democrat you should accept and recognize that.
And where did I say I support the coup? Or is it because you've finally jumped the ideological ship that you all of a sudden decide to accuse people by association? How about you get off that hobby horse and address me on your own two feet and we'll see who is the right one here.
Costa Fierro wrote:That Oil Strike plunged millions of Venezuelans into poverty. And Chavez successfully reduced poverty from 61,1% to 30%.
That's interesting. Because poverty was at 49% when Chavez came into office and it was at 24% when he died. How can 20% of the population magically plunge into poverty
Costa Fierro wrote:Foreign Interests in Venezuela have been Venezuela's cancer, not Chavez.
"Foreign interests" is the sort of propaganda people like Chavez use to justify their actions. "Foreign interests" are like "imperialists" or "communists". Boogeymen that are used to scare people into believing that the government is doing the right thing.
Costa Fierro wrote:You couple that to a country where the law enforcement system is corrupt and largely inept and you have the reason why Venezuela's violent crime rate is through the roof.It's not Colombian drug cartels and organized crime, it's violent street gangs killing and kidnapping people knowing that they can get away with it.
There were 1150 kidnappings in Venezuela in 2011. That's absolutely not enough to be the largest source of income for these criminal organizations that are active in Venezuela. Venezuela ranks fourth in the world for cocaine seizures, behind Colombia, the United States, and Panama.Costa Fierro wrote:Yes, I know where the violence comes from, and I have provided sources. Those street gangs you are talking about have indeed a large amount of illicit firearms. And you know where the money came from? With the money they earned from drugs trafficking.
Nope. Kidnapping. Venezuela now has one of the highest numbers of kidnappings in the world. Again, most kidnappings are committed by street gangs. Aside from police corruption, most people in Venezuela pay the ransoms and often don't report kidnappings to police. People actually put money aside in "kidnap kitties" to pay off the kidnappers if someone they know is taken.
Costa Fierro wrote:And with that in mind, what do you think brings in the most money? Drugs, where you have a greater risk of being caught by police? Or kidnappings, where you are guaranteed a ransom payment?
Costa Fierro wrote:Well, that's logical due to the fact that the Colombia Government and the FARC are having peace negotiations.
Those negotiations would not have been necessary if the Colombian government hadn't put FARC on its knees. That's what drove FARC to the negotiating table because it knew that there was negotiating and ending the conflict with some dignity or being utterly destroyed.
Costa Fierro wrote:The Venezuelan government, at least under Chavez', did quite a lot to prevent that and to stop these gangs. Of course, more can be done. But blaming everything on Chavez is somewhat childish if you ask me.
The government hasn't done anything. Why else has there been such a massive rise in violent crime?
Costa Fierro wrote:Either you are saying the government is hilariously inept or your argument is bullshit and the government has done absolutely nothing to fight criminals
Costa Fierro wrote:I think I provided you with enough sources last time to show you how much it improved.
You are trying to argue against the rise in violent crime by saying "I showed you some shit that it totally irrelevant to your argument".
That's pretty bad. But is it Chavez' fault? Doubt that. The Healthcare sector needs a radical reform, I agree with you on that. But I don't agree with you that 'everything is the fault of Chavez'. Chavez improved healthcare.
Costa Fierro wrote:False.
Oh? So, everything was fine until Chavez died and Maduro showed up and suddenly, everything went down the proverbial crapper? That's one hell of a collapse.
Costa Fierro wrote:All the figures improved during Chavez' presidency.
The only thing that improved during Chavez's presidency was poverty. Unless of course you call 24,000 murder victims an "improvement".
Costa Fierro wrote:You simply don't want to accept that. Maduro is absolute garbage, and Chavez was somewhat autocratic, but to say that it set to rot under Chavez is absolutely bullshit and you know it very well.
I accept that some aspects of Chavez's administration were good. I've never denied that. But what I see here is people blatantly white washing some pretty serious social and economic issues. "Oh well, it's not that bad". 24,000 murder victims a year is pretty bad. Add 16,000 kidnapping victims and we pretty much have recipe for a failed state.
Costa Fierro wrote:Maduro doesn't have a mental illness whatsoever.
Of course not. Believing animals are talking to oneself is indicative of a healthy state of mind.
Costa Fierro wrote:No, you seem to denying a lot of things.
Oh good. Now we're using the "no you" ploy.
Costa Fierro wrote:You said that Chavez used the ''oil money'' to solely invest in the Military. Something which is bullshit. I have provided sources etc that proves me right, here you have another one. Military expenses in 2013 were even lower than Argentina's. You can also clearly see that in percentageof GDP that Venezuela ranks lower than Bolivia, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and other countries.
Annual spending may be low, but this was done over a period of a decade. The Venezuelan military has essentially been rearmed. And that military equipment doesn't come cheap, even if it is Russian.
by Anglo-California » Sun Dec 21, 2014 12:49 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bienenhalde, Ineva, Plan Neonie, Talibanada
Advertisement