London gets oil aid from Venezuela

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

There's absolutely nothing ridiculous about this trade, except for the fact that Chavez is simply trading something that he stole from someone else. Aside from that, however, it's perfectly fine.

So he's using what he stole to make a deal for something someone else stole. Personally, I think your whole "stole" definition to be a little broad.

farfromglorified wrote:

The "plan" I spoke of in my previous post wasn't in reference to this trade. It was in reference to his complete "socialistic revolution" that is only made possible by the capitalistic enterprise of selling oil at market prices to us "devils".

Perhaps he's only socialistic in regards to his own country; like setting up Venezuela as one huge company with himself as the CEO. Perhaps he's not really a socialist at all, but is instead using a term that's popular in his country right now in order to keep the necessary support to remain in office (sort of like Bush and the word "conservative"). That way he could "save" his country from socialism by using it in doses (like I hoped he would do when I thought he could be a Latin FDR). Perhaps he's just some lucky yet sly dumbass (again, not unlike Bush).

rebornFixer

RainDog wrote:

Perhaps he's only socialistic in regards to his own country; like setting up Venezuela as one huge company with himself as the CEO. Perhaps he's not really a socialist at all, but is instead using a term that's popular in his country right now in order to keep the necessary support to remain in office (sort of like Bush and the word "conservative"). That way he could "save" his country from socialism by using it in doses (like I hoped he would do when I thought he could be a Latin FDR). Perhaps he's just some lucky yet sly dumbass (again, not unlike Bush).

All good possibilities. I lean towards believing the second one, personally. So much of what seems to go on behind the scenes in that country suggests that Chavez doesn't really believe in the ideology that everyone has intrinisic worth, which I think is core in real socialism.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

So he's using what he stole to make a deal for something someone else stole. Personally, I think your whole "stole" definition to be a little broad.

Actually, no. Britain, in this instance, isn't stealing anything involved in this trade.

Perhaps he's only socialistic in regards to his own country; like setting up Venezuela as one huge company with himself as the CEO. Perhaps he's not really a socialist at all, but is instead using a term that's popular in his country right now in order to keep the necessary support to remain in office (sort of like Bush and the word "conservative"). That way he could "save" his country from socialism by using it in doses (like I hoped he would do when I thought he could be a Latin FDR). Perhaps he's just some lucky yet sly dumbass (again, not unlike Bush).

Chavez is a dumbass, yes. And he's also a socialistic one, both self-proclaimed and proven by the increasing trend of nationalizations under his rule. Chavez hasn't saved his country from anything. He's handed it over to the looters who elected him. He has given them exactly what they asked for, and the reprecussions of these actions are already showing.

farfromglorified

reborncareerist wrote:

the ideology that everyone has intrinisic worth, which I think is core in real socialism.

Hmmm....I'd argue that ignoring the intrinsic worth of people is the core of socialism.

rebornFixer

farfromglorified wrote:

Hmmm....I'd argue that ignoring the intrinsic worth of people is the core of socialism.

If one takes the reality of how non-democratic socialism is practiced here on the planet? Then yes, absolutely.

If one is using "democratic socialism" as a model (by that, I mean socialist touches in an otherwise basically capitalist system), then I must disagree.

farfromglorified

reborncareerist wrote:

If one takes the reality of how non-democratic socialism is practiced here on the planet? Then yes, absolutely.

If one is using "democratic socialism" as a model (by that, I mean socialist touches in an otherwise basically capitalist system), then I must disagree.

Still doesn't work for me. Any system wherein the worth of a person is defined by the state as opposed to the market can hold no title to recognizing the intrinsic value of a person. Thankfully, even your "democratic socialists" don't do completely this, since they know whom to loot, just like the undemocratic ones do.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Actually, no. Britain, in this instance, isn't stealing anything involved in this trade.

The salaries of the people hired to give "advice" likely come from tax dollars.

So, make any plans to give back that stolen land your living on yet?

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

The salaries of the people hired to give "advice" likely come from tax dollars.

Meh...you're doing a poor job of aping my arguments here.

If the advice were itself being stolen, as was the oil, then yes I'd agree with you.

So, make any plans to give back that stolen land your living on yet?

Who did I steal it from?

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Meh...you're doing a poor job of aping my arguments here.

If the advice were itself being stolen, as was the oil, then yes I'd agree with you.

No, I'd say I'm doing a pretty good job. Likely no one would agree with giving this advice for free, so theft had to occur at some point.

farfromglorified wrote:

Who did I steal it from?

I never said you stole it, I said it was stolen. Is there a statute of limitations included in your definition, or is it that once an object changes hands so many times it ceases to be stolen?

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

No, I'd say I'm doing a pretty good job. Likely no one would agree with giving this advice for free, so theft had to occur at some point.

Assuming the government is paying for it, which it probably is, then yes. Theft did have to occur at some point. But you're comparing two thefts that are not equal. In other words, you've taken one core argument of mine and ignored the rest. It's a caricature. If Britain's actions were comparable, the British government would be walking into the advice-givers' offices here, pointing guns at them, and forcing them to participate. That's not the case. Yet in Venezuela, that's exactly what happened in the offices of those who produce the oil that Hugo Chavez is so graciously offering.

I never said you stole it, I said it was stolen.

Ok. Who was it stolen from?

Is there a statute of limitations included in your definition, or is it that once an object changes hands so many times it ceases to be stolen?

Not at all.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

In other words, you've taken one core argument of mine and ignored the rest. It's a caricature.

Really? Damn, sorry about that. I guess seeing as how that's never happened to me, I just don't know how to relate.

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok. Who was it stolen from?

Natives, likely.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Really? Damn, sorry about that. I guess seeing as how that's never happened to me, I just don't know how to relate.

No need to apologize.

Natives, likely.

Not at all. The only native tribe to have arguably ever occupied my land was the Occaneechi. That tribe was a common trading partner with the British, and their land wasn't stolen. Much of it, as a matter of fact, was abandoned by the Occaneechi as they settled within British forts and towns.

Commy

farfromglorified wrote:

Hmmm....I'd argue that ignoring the intrinsic worth of people is the core of socialism.

really? see i think you can't have freedom without equality...

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

really? see i think you can't have freedom without equality...

Hehe....freedom from what?

Commy

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe....freedom from what?

haha. good point.

freedom from a class based society, where we are separated by how much money we have in the bank....among other things.

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

haha. good point.

freedom from a class based society, where we are separated by how much money we have in the bank....among other things.

Freedom from a class-based society where we are separated by how much money we have in the bank??? Let me ask you a question:

How do you achieve that without separating people based on how much money they have in the bank?

Commy

farfromglorified wrote:

Freedom from a class-based society where we are separated by how much money we have in the bank??? Let me ask you a question:

How do you achieve that without separating people based on how much money they have in the bank?

raising minimum wage, tax the rich, socialized health care....cheap, quality housing, change from a military based economy to one based on social oriented policies...less gov't, more individual freedom...


when one makes 20 million, ten thousand people lose.

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

raising minimum wage, tax the rich, socialized health care....cheap, quality housing, change from a military based economy to one based on social oriented policies...less gov't, more individual freedom...


when one makes 20 million, ten thousand people lose.

Wow...you fell into the slogans and scripts pretty quick there.

So when you "raise the minimum wage", how are you not separating people by how much money they have in the bank? Aren't you telling those with lots of money to pay those without?

So when you "tax the rich", how are you not separating people by how much money they have in the bank? Aren't you telling those with lots of money to pay your tax and those without to collect?

So when you "socialize health care", how are you not separating people by how much money they have in the bank? Aren't you telling those with lots of money to buy health care for those without?

Everything you propose here requires more government, not less. And each one requires the threat of violence to keep those you've separated as rich to continue supporting your scheme, which really makes me doubt your committment to a "change from a military based economy".

Commy

farfromglorified wrote:

Wow...you fell into the slogans and scripts pretty quick there.

sorry its been a while...

So when you "raise the minimum wage", how are you not separating people by how much money they have in the bank? Aren't you telling those with lots of money to pay those without?

We are already separted by income. We need to take steps to level the playing field. In order to do that certain sacrifices will need to be made by those who have more...

So when you "tax the rich", how are you not separating people by how much money they have in the bank? Aren't you telling those with lots of money to pay your tax and those without to collect?

just enough to level the playing field, ideally we end up with a flat tax and everyone is doing well...the United States certainly has enough money as it is, accounting for almost half the world's speindng on means of violence.

So when you "socialize health care", how are you not separating people by how much money they have in the bank? Aren't you telling those with lots of money to buy health care for those without?

again, when the field is leveled, ie we have equal income, the rich won't be supporting the poor. as it stands some 40 million american are without health care, this is while we are killing hundreds of thousands of people in country that didn't do a thing to any of us, and had no intention of doing so. our priorites are pretty fucked up. and the rich don't have to pay for it. Again, the US spends more on violence then the next 27 countries combined...there's room for some spending on health care I'm sure.

Everything you propose here requires more government, not less. And each one requires the threat of violence to keep those you've separated as rich to continue supporting your scheme, which really makes me doubt your committment to a "change from a military based economy".

At first the system requires sacrifice, but the people will ultimately rule, democratic down to the workplace....

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

We are already separted by income. We need to take steps to level the playing field. In order to do that certain sacrifices will need to be made by those who have more...

Yikes. I understand. But do you not see that people will still be separated by income in your plan???

just enough to level the playing field, ideally we end up with a flat tax and everyone is doing well...the United States certainly has enough money as it is, accounting for almost half the world's speindng on means of violence.

And I find it odd that you don't support that spending. Just like we make "war for peace", you've adopted that logic in your "separate people by money in order to ensure no one is separated by money" plan.

again, when the field is leveled, ie we have equal income, the rich won't be supporting the poor. as it stands some 40 million american are without health care, this is while we are killing hundreds of thousands of people in country that didn't do a thing to any of us, and had no intention of doing so. our priorites are pretty fucked up. and the rich don't have to pay for it. Again, the US spends more on violence then the next 27 countries combined...there's room for some spending on health care I'm sure.

At first the system requires sacrifice, but the people will ultimately rule, democratic down to the workplace....

Good lord.

When your "field is levelled", you're going to discover something very important: food cannot grow itself. Medicine cannot invent itself. Money cannot give itself value. The key to each is labor. And when you've equally distributed all the resources of this country equally, you'll see for yourself what happens to people who don't understand where those resources came from in the first place: the unequal labor of those very same people.