Fairweather Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 This reminds me of the recent US supreme court decision that allows local governments to take land from individuals and give it private land developers so they can turn a profit. Only in this case its backwards. Good analogy. I agree. Now, take a look at which court justices ruled for this outrage. Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer. All liberals. Tell me once again; which ideology represents the greatest threat to our freedom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Good analogy. I agree. Now, take a look at which court justices ruled for this outrage. Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer. All liberals. Tell me once again; which ideology represents the greatest threat to our freedom? Remind me again which group of justices gave the president power to lock up citizens at his whim without a trial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 If you're talking about Jose Padilla, his case hasn't even gone before the supreme court yet. So what are you talking about? Aside from his case, and the Saudi dual citizen who has been released, all of the other detainees are non-citizens, I believe. Regardless, I think the supreme court will grant him a trial, as they should. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 If you're talking about Jose Padilla, his case hasn't even gone before the supreme court yet. Yes, Jose Padilla. The Court (well Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy & O'connor) refused to hear his case because of jurisdiction issues. Rumsfeld v. Padilla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 The surest way to eliminate a socialist regime is to give it free reign to implement its agenda. The ensuing missallocation of productive assets that results from attempting to coordinate supply and demand by central committee will inevitably result in a massive depletion of capital and ultimately the complete implosion of the entire economy. Neither economic theory nor experience allow for any other outcome. Bon chance, Chavistas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 Ruling on jurisdiction sets no precedent as a ruling on the merits would. The supreme court has not ruled on the fate of this citizen detainee. It will be interesting to see how the new chief justice rules if this case makes it to his court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 The surest way to eliminate a socialist regime is to give it free reign to implement its agenda. The ensuing missallocation of productive assets that results from attempting to coordinate supply and demand by central committee will inevitably result in a massive depletion of capital and ultimately the complete implosion of the entire economy. Neither economic theory nor experience allow for any other outcome. Bon chance, Chavistas. I hear what you're saying, unfortunately in the case of The USSR, and a few other regimes, it took over 70 years for the house of cards to fall. Shall we write off three generations of Venezuelans to another demonstration of a bankrupt idea? I say we put a stop to this redux asap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I think that an object lesson in applied economics could ultimately do far more good than any US intervention on their behalf. It's time for the folks in SA and elsewhere to live with the consequences of their rhetoric IMO. Now that the Soviet Union is gone, they pose no strategic threat whatsoever to the US or the rest of the world, and there's really no need for us to expend capital - geopolitical or monetary - to intervene on their behalf. The prevailing lesson from our attempts to save SA from itself for decades can be summed up in one line: "Never attempt to liberate a fool from chains he adores." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TREETOAD Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 You guys are so full of shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 The prevailing lesson from our attempts to save SA from itself for decades can.... I never realized how deeply your ignorance pervades your being until reading the above statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 South America was so much better off when the US propped up the likes of Pinochet and Somoza etal. Somoza was leader of a South American country??? I guess all those 'latinas' down south fall into the same mental pot you have created in that big open mind of yours, eh? That's the best you can do? After making a valid point about the nature of Venezuela's democratically instituted reform; after making a valid point regarding your support of a military ouster of a democratically elected leader, all you can come up with is a nit-pick about Somoza being from Central America as opposed to South America? Please respond as to whether or not you support the will of the people in Venezuela, or the will of the minority through militant violence.... The choice is yours, and I am curious as to your answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 How do those who call for our intervention in Venezuela with the argument of saving "three generations of Venezuelans" differentiate between that country and all the others we could save? Perhaps it is the difference between Venezuela being a heavily socialist state versus countless number of African states being ruled by dictators? In other words, "helping people" is a great justification when it serves their ideological tastes but "helping people" isn't enough of a justification to help people for non-political reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 If Zimbabwe had oil... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 South America was so much better off when the US propped up the likes of Pinochet and Somoza etal. Somoza was leader of a South American country??? I guess all those 'latinas' down south fall into the same mental pot you have created in that big open mind of yours, eh? That's the best you can do? After making a valid point about the nature of Venezuela's democratically instituted reform; after making a valid point regarding your support of a military ouster of a democratically elected leader, all you can come up with is a nit-pick about Somoza being from Central America as opposed to South America? Please respond as to whether or not you support the will of the people in Venezuela, or the will of the minority through militant violence.... The choice is yours, and I am curious as to your answer. * I still believe in The Truman Doctrine. * I don't believe the last election/referrendum was conducted fairly. I don't believe it represents the will of the people. * Contrary to JayB's assertion that Venezuela has no strategic value to The United States, I think the geo-political importance of the country as it relates to Columbia's strife, Chinese influence, and yes...to oil, speaks otherwise. * And lets not forget....This guy is acting extra-constitutionally, the election be damned. It will be interesting to see how these landowners fare in the Venezuelan courts - and also interesting to see if Chavez honors an unfavorable decision. (I suspect he is another Mugabe.) Will you still support him if he does not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 How do those who call for our intervention in Venezuela with the argument of saving "three generations of Venezuelans" differentiate between that country and all the others we could save? Perhaps it is the difference between Venezuela being a heavily socialist state versus countless number of African states being ruled by dictators? In other words, "helping people" is a great justification when it serves their ideological tastes but "helping people" isn't enough of a justification to help people for non-political reasons. I would have supported US intervention in Rwanda on simple moral grounds. Clinton seemed to think helping out the violent KLA/terrorist muslim minority in the Serbian region known as Kosovo was more important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 (edited) Please respond as to whether or not you support the will of the people in Venezuela, or the will of the minority through militant violence.... The choice is yours, and I am curious as to your answer. So I still haven't received an answer to this.... * I don't believe the last election/referrendum was conducted fairly. I don't believe it represents the will of the people. Really? So international election observers were all in cahorts with Chavez, or perhaps duped? Please tell me your reason for doubting the validity of their election, an election that by all measures was seemingly a much more credible and verified process than the ones we have experienced in this country during the last two presidential cycles.... A couple of interesting points: -A somewhat recent opinion poll conducted in Venezuela (can't remember source; perhaps google it) gave around 60% support to Chavez, and around 10%-15% to the opposition that spearheaded the coup. With their current windfall from high oil prices, his support has understandably only increased, due to his heightened ability to implement the "reforms" promised. -There is an active and vocal opposition, a very monied class, owning a television station which is devoted to pretty comical attacks on Chavez. It's pretty incessant, and completely free in its maneuverings, from everything I've gathered. So, freedom of the press, anyone? * And lets not forget....This guy is acting extra-constitutionally, the election be damned. It will be interesting to see how these landowners fare in the Venezuelan courts - and also interesting to see if Chavez honors an unfavorable decision. (I suspect he is another Mugabe.) Inform me please of the extraconstitutional measures he is taking. Inform me also about the nature of their constitution, its history, who helped craft it, and who it was meant to serve. Will you still support him... I don't necessarily "support" him right now. What I DO support is Venezuela's independence, and her people's choice in electing who they want, without the self-serving hypocrisy of US meddlings in the process. Edited September 28, 2005 by sexual_chocolate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 How do those who call for our intervention in Venezuela with the argument of saving "three generations of Venezuelans" differentiate between that country and all the others we could save? Perhaps it is the difference between Venezuela being a heavily socialist state versus countless number of African states being ruled by dictators? In other words, "helping people" is a great justification when it serves their ideological tastes but "helping people" isn't enough of a justification to help people for non-political reasons. I would have supported US intervention in Rwanda on simple moral grounds. Clinton seemed to think helping out the violent KLA/terrorist muslim minority in the Serbian region known as Kosovo was more important. Actually, a better description would be that he bowed to the political pressure from the American public not being able to stomach lives being "wasted" to help poor Africans. My point is that there are huge amounts of suffering going on there (and in plenty of other places) that we could, if we chose to, pay attention to. Unfortunately for them there isn't enough of a political impedus. So don't use the "let's do it for the Venezuelan children" argument cause I know it's crap coming from you or anybody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Political impedus? Political impedence? Political impetus? Political iambic pentameter? Quite different meanings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 pompatus of love? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 30, 2005 Author Share Posted September 30, 2005 http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/venezuela/intro/ The EU sent an Exploratory Mission to Venezuela to see whether deployment of an EU observation mission was advisable and feasible. Nevertheless, it was not possible to secure with the Venezuelan electoral authorities the conditions to carry out observation in line with the Union’s standard methodology used in all countries where EU election observation missions are deployed. The Inter- American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others have recently issued reports, expressing concern on the extreme political polarisation, the regular acts of violence involving protesters from different sectors of society, violation of HR with impunity and lack of autonomy and independence of the judicial system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 The surest way to eliminate a socialist regime is to give it free reign to implement its agenda. The ensuing missallocation of productive assets that results from attempting to coordinate supply and demand by central committee will inevitably result in a massive depletion of capital and ultimately the complete implosion of the entire economy. Neither economic theory nor experience allow for any other outcome. Blah fucking blah blah. China now finances the United States government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaps Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 THANKS FOR THE BOLD!!! I'M UNCAGING MY SOUL ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW!!! Pathetic losers! You think anyone even reads what you write? You think you're making a difference?? I'm laughing so hard I'm crying!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 30, 2005 Author Share Posted September 30, 2005 I used the bold because there wasn't a yellow highliter feature on cc.com. Other than the persons I was discussing the issue with, I don't really care if anyone reads what I write - especially you, assmunch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TREETOAD Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 The surest way to eliminate a socialist regime is to give it free reign to implement its agenda. The ensuing missallocation of productive assets that results from attempting to coordinate supply and demand by central committee will inevitably result in a massive depletion of capital and ultimately the complete implosion of the entire economy. Neither economic theory nor experience allow for any other outcome. Blah fucking blah blah. China now finances the United States government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camilo Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 agebottom Commie pigs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.