On Dec 4, 1:41 am, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:> On Dec 3, 4:22 pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Dec 3, 4:03 pm, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:>
>>> On Dec 3, 3:40 pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>>> On Dec 3, 3:34 pm, Robert Cohen
msn.com> wrote:>
>>>>> On Dec 3, 2:47 pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>>>>> On Dec 3, 2:38 pm, Robert Cohen
msn.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>> President-for-life-wannabe Chavez is allegedly economically hurting
>>>>>>> his country as oil production is allegedly way down; though revenues
>>>>>>> apparently aren't, since the d stuff is currently approx $90+ a barrel
>>>>>>> (which contains approx 40 galllons of gasolene).
>
>>>>>>> He has appparently substantially taken over the oil corporations'
>>>>>>> assets down there, and production has reportedly "radically"
>>>>>>> diminished.
>
>>>>>>> I suppose he's very idealistic, while in the meantime implementing a
>>>>>>> socialism paradise has had expected negative consequences.
>
>>>>>>> I suppose he is a sincere Marxist leveller, popular with the mucho
>>>>>>> urban poor, and envisions his oil exporting nation to be a better-off
>>>>>>> Cuba, while the bourgeoise Venezuelans have barely won something at
>>>>>>> the election precincts.
>
>>>>>>> I've read there is a "car-buying boom" there, and dometic gasolene is
>>>>>>> cheap: whopeee dooo
>
>>>>>>> I can't think he completely comprehends/realizes that he is (seemingly
>>>>>>> to me from wha i gather) actually wrecking modern economics by
>>>>>>> alienating so many of the middle and upper strata.
>
>>>>>>> If I am sounding the schnooky neoliberal oil company shill, then fug
>>>>>>> oil companies in the "long run" of course, though meanwhile I fear
>>>>>>> Chavez making Venezuela a relative economic basket case.
>
>>>>>>> Chavez, no
>>>>>>> Venzuela, si
>
>>>>>> NEWSFLASH
>
>>>>>> Commie Venezuela Holds Fair Election
>>>>>> Capitalist Russia Doesn't
>
>>>>>> But hey, let's talk about everything else.
>
>>>>>> -tg- Hide quoted text -
>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>>>>> re: Putin
>
>>>>> He has reportedly eighty percent popularity: They appraently luv their
>>>>> authoritarian nationalist when the bumbling Yeltsins couldn't do
>>>>> miracles.
>
>>>>> Putin dictatorship has reportedly confiscated Yukos and the other big
>>>>> oil, and put(in) his henchpersons in charge.
>
>>>>> Recall shock capitalism of the nineties, and the masses reportedly ate
>>>>> potatoes and potatoes and ...hating Gorby.
>
>>>>> Russia reportedly "achieved" the gross national product of Portugal in
>>>>> Boris' relative "freer market capitalism," which was more chaos than
>>>>> apparently the real people could literally stomach.
>
>>>>> Putin has expediently and opportunistically pleased his public; and
>>>>> here again favorable OIL pricing is the apparent major decisive
>>>>> factor.
>
>>>>> Chess genius & libertarian (or perhaps intellectual idealist social
>>>>> democrat) Gary Kasparov etal doesn't like it; though Vladamir's
>>>>> repression with both some affluence and simple plentiful meat, bread
>>>>> 'n butter is working a helluvalot better than that foolhardy "chaotic
>>>>> de-socialism."
>
>>>>> It ain't pretty idealism, though understandable pragmatism.
>
>>>>> Putin should not steal or be perceived as personally corrupt, because
>>>>> he'll seemingly be a hero or popular leader in modern Russian history.
>
>>>> NEWSFLASH
>
>>>> Commie Venezuela Holds Fair Election
>>>> Capitalist Russia Doesn't
>
>>>> But hey, let's talk about everything else.
>
>>>> -tg
>
>>> I don't find anything particularly offensive or worrisome about an
>>> amendment to let a popular person stay in power indefinitely. Term
>>> limits are inherently undemocratic.
>
>> An interesting question. Where do you draw the line? Age? Citizenship?
>> Felony convictions?
>
> I wouldn't draw any lines. If most voters choose a senile felon from
> Guatemala to run the country, so be it.
>
>> But I see the whole system as anti-democratic in the USA, since we
>> don't have one-person-one-vote, even as a representative republic.
>
> Not a fan of the electoral college, eh? What about those poor bastards
> in Utah?
>
Poor bastards? The ones with three hot and passionate wives and a
business empire??!!
Anyway, I don't object to no qualifications for pres but it does have
that logical inconsistency that irks me---why any rules about
anything? It seems we need some inertial damping to prevent chaos, so
we have the constitution and it is hard to change or get around
things. Unfortunately, unequal representation in the Senate and in
presidential elections is essentially impossible to change, despite
its irrationality.
What I find truly amusing is the way everyone except Joe Biden seems
to think that a federal system in Iraq is a bad idea when it actually
would solve lots of the problems. Why do we have representation based
on square miles and sheep but the Sunnis can't?
-tg
-tg
>> -tg
>
>>> If it ain't broke (according to the people who vote), don't fix it.
>
>>> If the elected leader gets out of hand, we vote him out.
