It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hugo Chavez: 'Go to hell, gringos! Go home!'

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
People can be so blind to anything our government leaders deem evil and wrong . . .

The only reason Chavez is a thorn in the side of the Bush administration and his oil barons cronies . . . is because Chavez kicked them our of his nation for stealing Venezuela resources.

If Venezuela were not an oil nation, Bush would not even care if Chavez were hanging its citizens in the streets.

To compare Chavez to Hitler . . . please . . . Bush fills that role better in his pursue of the Middle East invasion for control of oil resources.

Is incredible that in the name of Capitalism and corporatism gone wrong in our nation is ok to have our nation sold to foreign nations for profits.

Look first to what is happening to us here in our own democratic nation before questioning the motives of other leadders around the world while trying to keep their nations to the property of the people.



Dae

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
You don't see anything wrong with nationalization of private assets? That is a death knell for a country - you drive out those who invest and produce, and the only ones left after a period of time are the leeches.


How about, is there anything wrong with privatisation of national assets? Because that is what my country has done, in the 1980's, water, electricity, gas etc., were all privatised. Is it any better? No. Is it any cheaper? No. Who is it benefiting? The priviate shareholders.

How about this, you drive out those whose sole purpose is to make profit.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dae
How about, is there anything wrong with privatisation of national assets? Because that is what my country has done, in the 1980's, water, electricity, gas etc., were all privatised. Is it any better? No. Is it any cheaper? No. Who is it benefiting? The priviate shareholders.

How about this, you drive out those whose sole purpose is to make profit.

I don't regard utilities as national assets. Unless, that is, the gov't paid for the investment in plant and capital.

Private companies can deliver a better product at a lower cost.

So you drive out the people whose sole purpose is to make profit. And you replace it with what? Dictatorial control.

And you say "profit" as if it were a bad thing. It isn't.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

And you say "profit" as if it were a bad thing. It isn't.


No Js, is not a bad thing actually the way capitalism works is for the good of a Nation.

But even you have noticed that in the US is has gone wrong, it not control and its ruling our government.

Please even you have notice this . . . our nation has been turned into a nation of spenders and has been sold to foreign private interest.

Js even our highways that are build with tax payer money belongs to foreign companies.

Something has gone definitely wrong in our nation, I blame it on corruption and greed.

See that is one of the problems with Capitalism going wrong, greed.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Why should the USA care if the leader of Venezuela, who was elected by a wide margin, plans to turn his country into a socialist state?


Because he's a whacked out anti-american communist who wants America to be destroyed. He said so in a major speech while visiting his good friend - the president of Iran (another freaky whack-job).

There is a thread about that speech somewhere here at ATS (or PTS).

Oh .. you forgot to mention in your list of his activities that he has basically taken over the press in Venezuela. They no longer have a free press. No freedom of speech. So how can the people there 'freely' elect anyone when they aren't even allowed to discuss the topics or the candidates???

[edit on 1/22/2007 by FlyersFan]


The BBC, also known as the world's last truly free press (or was recently anyway) is also govt owned. So...what's wrong with govt owned media? If it's dedicated to free press, as the BBC has always been then what's wrong with govt owned media? He's nationalized oil and has given the profits back to the citizens in the form of completely erasing illiteracy in his country, good health care and a better standard of living.

He is very much afraid of Venezuela being invaded, which given our PNAC foreign policy of invading anyone we want to, together with it being a large oil-producing nation, and the U.S.'s efforts at trying to start a coup against him and assasinate him, well, he's got some pretty good reasons for being anti-U.S. I'd say. The Bolivar revolution as he calls it, is working for his people and it is spreading thru Latin America because it's working. He is forming allies with other countries so that Venezuela can be that much stronger against the U.S. If I were sitting on top of oil wells, I'd be doing the same thing, in order to protect my country from the kind of invasion America did in Iraq and destroying the entire country.

The Revolution is not about destroying capitalism and installing Communism around the world. The Revolution is about the People finally getting a fair deal from their govt., instead of having corrupt leaders who make sure their wealthy cronies get more money.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Private companies can deliver a better product at a lower cost.


So goes the rhetoric. Of course, there are plenty of people out there in the REAL WORLD who know different.


And you say "profit" as if it were a bad thing. It isn't.


Tell me, how is it possible that private companies can make a profit and deliver more cheaply?

a) they don't and
b) in order to claim they do, they rip off their workers.

It really is that simple.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Its not a licence to use a tv, its a dedicated revenue to ensure that our quality of tv doesn't get dumbed down like some other countries where quantity seems to take priority over quality. Having said that at least the US has added scope to the English language with phrases such as 'kick ass', 'Haul ass' and 'Shot my ass off' - in fact it seems they do a lot of things with 'ass', particularly talking out of it.

This thread I think has migrated to BTS now....



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
anyone here from Venezuela ? Maybe they can shed some light on the subject ...



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Chest thumping jerk.
I hope he slips in the bathtub, when he takes his monthly bath.

Isn't gringo a politically inncorrect term for English speaking foreigner?
A disparaging term.

I believe I need a lawyer, I feel belittled.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Quackmaster
I know in the UK the US is a standing joke.

This, coming from a nation where you need a license to use a TV?


Not to mention the UK's firearms laws. and the fact that in the UK you can be imprisoned or defending your home and family from someone breaking into your house. Actually, if those laws weren't so tragically stupid, we'd also be laughing at the UK.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
No Js, is not a bad thing actually the way capitalism works is for the good of a Nation.

But even you have noticed that in the US is has gone wrong, it not control and its ruling our government.

Js even our highways that are build with tax payer money belongs to foreign companies.

Take note who sold what, marg. The gov't sold management of those highways and ports to the foreigners.


See that is one of the problems with Capitalism going wrong, greed.

I'd be very happy if our gov't could take a product and turn a profit, marg. They can't because of corruption, cost overruns, duplication of effort and lack of expertise. They are not in the business to make money, only to take it from us and spend it.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Tell me, how is it possible that private companies can make a profit and deliver more cheaply?

a) they don't and
b) in order to claim they do, they rip off their workers.

It really is that simple.


How naive that some think the government is or would be better at doing just about anything. Past history of government ownership or intervention prove anything to any of you?

Some reasons for profit business is more efficient that government owned:

1-business is driven to minimize cost to maximize profit. Government (especially a dictatorship) eds up creating a huge and unecessary bureaucracy to run the operation because it doesn't need to worry about cost.
2-for profit business needs to keep service good and cost as low as possible to keep competitors from stealing their customers. government doesn't care about either since where else is the customer going to go for service?

I guess some just naively need to feel comfortable "knowing" that they don't have to "worry" about taking care of anything for themselves. Let the government do all that.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by jsobecky
Private companies can deliver a better product at a lower cost.


So goes the rhetoric. Of course, there are plenty of people out there in the REAL WORLD who know different.


And you say "profit" as if it were a bad thing. It isn't.


Tell me, how is it possible that private companies can make a profit and deliver more cheaply?

a) they don't and
b) in order to claim they do, they rip off their workers.

It really is that simple.

Show me one example where gov't delivers an equivalent product at a lower price.

Gov't is not in the manufacturing or engineering business. Their sole purpose is (should be) to provide protection for the citizens and to enforce contracts.

They cannot deliver a cost-effective product because of corruption, duplication of effort, bureaucratic red tape, cost overruns, lack of expertise, and every other ill that would be quickly cured by a private company.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by R3KR
anyone here from Venezuela ? Maybe they can shed some light on the subject ...


IF they still have access to the internet and IF they can still say what they want to without fear of reprisal.

Tragically funny to see some here defending chavez for actually creating this communist totalitarian state while vilifying the current administration for what they're afraid it might do.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

I'd be very happy if our gov't could take a product and turn a profit, marg. They can't because of corruption, cost overruns, duplication of effort and lack of expertise. They are not in the business to make money, only to take it from us and spend it.


Beside pharmaceuticals producing long term remedies for medical problems, our nation has not produced anything major in the way of inventions in a long time.

Sometimes I wonder if our nation can be brought back to the people. . .

The same way my hart fills with pride as an American . . . it also fills with sadness and the feeling that I can not do anything to help, because I am nothing that a number easy replaceable.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Oh .. you forgot to mention in your list of his activities that he has basically taken over the press in Venezuela. They no longer have a free press. No freedom of speech. So how can the people there 'freely' elect anyone when they aren't even allowed to discuss the topics or the candidates???
[edit on 1/22/2007 by FlyersFan]


Yes he has (for better or worse) taken over the Venezualan press. But, according to you, privatised media (that can be manipulated by the owners) such as Fox etc is in anyway better?

Also, as other ATSers have pointed out, the only reason the U.S is interested in Venezuala is because of oil and other resources. If he didn't have oil, or nuclear missles/technology do you think that this would reach the media? Also what are Bush and his CIA cronies going to do? Go on a trip down memory lane by initiating a coup and instituting a capitalist dictator?



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chaoticar

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Oh .. you forgot to mention in your list of his activities that he has basically taken over the press in Venezuela. They no longer have a free press. No freedom of speech. So how can the people there 'freely' elect anyone when they aren't even allowed to discuss the topics or the candidates???
[edit on 1/22/2007 by FlyersFan]


Yes he has (for better or worse) taken over the Venezualan press. But, according to you, privatised media (that can be manipulated by the owners) such as Fox etc is better?

Also, as other ATSers have pointed out, the only reason the U.S is interested in Venezuala is because of oil and other resources. If he didn't have oil, or nuclear missles/technology do you think that this would reach the media? Also what are Bush and his CIA cronies going to do? Go on a trip down memory lane by initiating a coup and instituting a capitalist dictator?



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quackmaster
Its not a licence to use a tv, its a dedicated revenue to ensure that our quality of tv doesn't get dumbed down like some other countries where quantity seems to take priority over quality.

It's not a license to use a TV?

Do I need a licence?

You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.

www.tvlicensing.co.uk...

Sounds like you need one to me. Call it what you want, it's a license to use. And you have to pay for it.


How much does it cost?

A colour TV Licence costs £131.50 and a black and white licence costs £44.00.


Edit to add:


What happens if I don't have a TV Licence?

Using a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) without a valid TV Licence is against the law and could lead to prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000, not to mention the embarrassment and hassle of a court appearance.


And I saved the best for last...


How will you know if I don't have one?

There are a number of ways we can find out.


[edit on 22-1-2007 by jsobecky]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Beside pharmaceuticals producing long term remedies for medical problems, our nation has not produced anything major in the way of inventions in a long time.


marg, how can you say that when just about anything and everything that western civilization is based on was invented here? That doesn't mean other countries haven't come along and improved it, or made it cheaper due to their cheap labor.

partial list of U.S. inventions

[edit on 1/22/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
marg, how can you say that when just about anything and everything that western civilization is based on was invented here?


Actually as unfair as it may sound I was reading about how our nation has become stagnat when it comes to iventions and discoveries.




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join