VENEZUELANS REJECT CHAVEZ'S PLANS! HEY LIEBERALS, ARE YOU PAYINGATTENTION???

[Guest SteveL]

On 03 Dec 2007 21:27:10 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

>stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com (SteveL) wrote in

>news:boGdnQ0j2YvG7snanZ2dnUVZ8uydnZ2d@giganews.com:

>

>> As for the rest. He's been elected. If he has a mandate from the

>> people to nationalize his country's industries then so be it.

>> That's democracy.

>

>Could that be done in our "democracy", or do you think that the

>constitution might be an impediment? Do you think it should be an

>impediment?

 

Venezuela is not the USA, and neither is France, the UK, Sweden or

Canada. Yet they allow their governments to legally nationalize

industries, and yet are not dictatorships.

 

We keep making the mistake of trying to impose our ideals on people,

as long as the people are consulted what does it matter about the

details?

 

As for whether the Constitution is an impediment to nationalization of

industries, I don't know. Do you have a specific passage that bans it?

 

Should the Constitution remove the power to do such things from a

government with a mandate?

>

>Minus the restrictions imposed by such a document, a democracy is

>nothing but a self-serving mob. Or more often, a mob put into service

>of someone who claims to be its sole representative.

 

I'm sure democracy can do fine as a concept without the US

Constitution.

[Guest Herbert Cannon]

"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:CKednfFEEsLW7MnaRVnyuQA@giganews.com...

> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:03:11 -0600, "Herbert Cannon"

> <hcannon18@cox.net> wrote:

>

>>

>>If he holds another referdum and wins, I am quite sure the left will

>>defend

>>him inspite of the stench from the ballot box.

>

> Well you guys are currently attacking him inspite of the distinct

> lack of a stench from the ballot box.

 

The fat lady has not sung yet. She will sing when and if he leaves the

presidency. If the past is any indication, well you should be able to figure

that out without much help.

[Guest SteveL]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:37:12 -0600, "Herbert Cannon"

<hcannon18@cox.net> wrote:

>

>"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message

>news:CKednfFEEsLW7MnaRVnyuQA@giganews.com...

>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:03:11 -0600, "Herbert Cannon"

>> <hcannon18@cox.net> wrote:

>>

>>>

>>>If he holds another referdum and wins, I am quite sure the left will

>>>defend

>>>him inspite of the stench from the ballot box.

>>

>> Well you guys are currently attacking him inspite of the distinct

>> lack of a stench from the ballot box.

>

>The fat lady has not sung yet. She will sing when and if he leaves the

>presidency. If the past is any indication, well you should be able to figure

>that out without much help.

>

 

If there's one thing that the past is truly an indication of here, it

is that the left has not tended to support Latin American dictators.

 

I support democracy. All the rest is bullshit.

 

Like you say. We'll see.

[Guest Bert Hyman]

stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com (SteveL) wrote in

news:6LCdnR3oKcZF68nanZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d@giganews.com:

> As for whether the Constitution is an impediment to nationalization

> of industries, I don't know. Do you have a specific passage that

> bans it?

 

Well, the way our government is constituted, you'd have to find

something in the Constitution that allows it. Remember: limited and

enumerated powers.

 

The 4th and 5th Amendments were intended to emphasize that the state

can't simply confiscate property at will. But they are, as Hamilton

said, "exceptions to powers not granted" and as such provide a

"colourable pretext to claim more than were granted", hence the

recent problems with eminent domain.

> Should the Constitution remove the power to do such things from a

> government with a mandate?

 

Absolutely.

 

The Constitution is subject to amendment by a well-documented

process. If a People's State is what the people want, they'll have to

be explicit about it and work for their own enslavement.

 

--

Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

[Guest Herbert Cannon]

> Chavez is basically an idealist in an uncertain position. He's a

> potential Castro, but Castro wasn't really that bad a fellow either.

> His options were limited.

 

Why no, of course not, he really was a really good fellow, he just murdered

the oppostion; and he just recently locked up the dissidents. Not a bad

fellow at all, if you like living in communist dictatorships. If you dont

you float.

What utter bullshit.

 

He did the best he could.>

 

I would say he did a pretty good job of murder.

> Once we get rid of Bush and implement some economic reforms

> domestically, South America will restabilize, and the temptations of

> Communism will recede.

 

Yes and the world will turn nice and fuzzy and warm; and the terrorist will

all turn into hippies: and we can all surrender our arms; and we can disband

our armies; and Islam will be a peaceful religion; and everyone will love

everyone; and I have some bridges and some plots of land to sell you - the

snake oil I throw in for free.

 

As I say, my nickname for Bush is "Instant

> Communism".

 

My nickname for you is moron. Unless of course you want to buy my plots of

land, then I will call a dumb customer.

 

He makes Communism look good, as an alternative to

> imperialistic fascism.

 

Gee that must be why we are having a presidential election in the future

because we are a imperialistic fascist. The Bush Brown shirts are under your

bed.

[Guest Bert Hyman]

stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com (SteveL) wrote in

news:6LCdnR3oKcZF68nanZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d@giganews.com:

> On 03 Dec 2007 21:27:10 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

>>

>>Minus the restrictions imposed by such a document, a democracy is

>>nothing but a self-serving mob. Or more often, a mob put into

>>service of someone who claims to be its sole representative.

>

> I'm sure democracy can do fine as a concept without the US

> Constitution.

 

As a concept? Sure. And I said "such a document", not "that

document."

 

But in a real-world implementation, limits must be agreed to and

codified and made difficult to overturn. That's where constitutions

come in.

 

--

Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

[Guest hal@nospam.org]

like why is everyone posting several times each to this silly thread?

I mean, this is too weird....

 

 

Hal

[Guest hal@nospam.org]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:28:30 -0600, "Herbert Cannon"

<hcannon18@cox.net> wrote:

>

>"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus1999@gmail.com> wrote in message

>news:1304773c-713a-41a8-bc08-e3b3fa927956@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

>> On Dec 3, 2:56 pm, "Herbert Cannon" <hcanno...@cox.net> wrote:

>>> > Bert, go away. You're saying nothing, and you know it. Go off and

>>> > play.

>>>

>>> You have wandered into a newsgroup full of martial artists. For your own

>>> safety dont wander into any dojos.

>>

>> Actually, people as stupid as you are don't frighten me much.

>

>Sonny, people as dumb as you frighten me a lot. If you get your way, I see

>a nation of enslaved wimps.

> Sorry

>> to disappoint. Although, it tends to explain your fascination with

>> violence.

>Aww how touching a Mr. Non violent. You gonna march around the block with a

>candle and chant take back the night next. Did anyone ever tell you that

>when sheep flock together wolves are not frightened.

 

they are if the sheep have laser beams on their heads...

[Guest Herbert Cannon]

>

> When the U.S. restabilizes, so will the hemisphere, and to some extent

> the world.

 

Utter cark.

 

Bush has created ripples of violence and extremism

> throughout the world.

Here is a clue for you, moron, Islam and the extremism it promotes has been

around since the sixth century. You might want to visit the library and

check out the book " Unholy Terror." That was long before Bush - it was

Clinton's time.

Sorry Bush did not cause your plantar warts nor your jock itch either.

[Guest Herbert Cannon]

> they are if the sheep have laser beams on their heads...

 

Damn Hal I think even you could whip this guy's ass. He is a left wing loon.

You might want to explain to him that the world is going to fall apart and

all us right wing facists will cook him and eat him when it does.

[Guest Herbert Cannon]

<hal@nospam.org> wrote in message

news:47547a03.351654281@news.newsguy.com...

> like why is everyone posting several times each to this silly thread?

> I mean, this is too weird....

 

Well I am ill and cannot leave; therefore, extremely bored. How about you?

[Guest Herbert Cannon]

> If there's one thing that the past is truly an indication of here, it

> is that the left has not tended to support Latin American dictators.

 

I would have to say considering Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Uncle Ho, and few

others, the left's record, worldwide, is a bit spotty in that regard.

>

> I support democracy. All the rest is bullshit.

 

Amen. Too bad CNN does not. Then of course there is the democracy of radical

Islam - one vote - one person - one time.

>

> Like you say. We'll see.

 

Yup.

[Guest SteveL]

On 03 Dec 2007 21:47:56 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

>stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com (SteveL) wrote in

>news:6LCdnR3oKcZF68nanZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d@giganews.com:

>

>> As for whether the Constitution is an impediment to nationalization

>> of industries, I don't know. Do you have a specific passage that

>> bans it?

>

>Well, the way our government is constituted, you'd have to find

>something in the Constitution that allows it. Remember: limited and

>enumerated powers.

>

>The 4th and 5th Amendments were intended to emphasize that the state

>can't simply confiscate property at will. But they are, as Hamilton

>said, "exceptions to powers not granted" and as such provide a

>"colourable pretext to claim more than were granted", hence the

>recent problems with eminent domain.

 

Thanks for reminding me. Yep looks as though the US Constitution bans

nationalization.

 

However, that was just an aside. The real point was that other

countries have their own constitutions and their own ways of doing

things. They are no less democratic just because their constitutions

allow for nationalization.

 

But even that's not the point. If, through its own internal democratic

process, another country allows itself to nationalize its own

industries for what the people see as their betterment, then that's

their call despite what our constitution says.

 

Certainly less of a danger to democracy than us sticking OUR NOSE IN

because we don't like the result.

>

>> Should the Constitution remove the power to do such things from a

>> government with a mandate?

>

>Absolutely.

>

>The Constitution is subject to amendment by a well-documented

>process. If a People's State is what the people want, they'll have to

>be explicit about it and work for their own enslavement.

 

So nationalizing one inductry is no different from having a People's

Republic? Tell it to the Brits.

 

And if it's the wrong choice (or becomes the wrong choice years

later) the people can vote in a government that sells it off again.

 

Just like the UK.

[Guest Pierre Honeyman]

On Dec 3, 11:10 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Dec 3, 1:06 pm, Mark Goldberg <msgoldb...@optonline.net> wrote:

>

>

>

> > Jerry Kraus wrote:

> > > I see you're a martial arts and gun freak.

>

> > He's a father, parent, former soldier in service to his nation, a

> > neighbor, a friend, a curious viewer of politics, a man who enjoys self

> > defense, a man who enjoys sharing his sense of security and honor with

> > his neighbors and colleagues.

> > Why am I not surprised?

>

> > Because you are a pimp... and he's a man.

>

> > > I realize the concept that people should work together to try to solve

> > > social problems would be difficult for someone who sees destruction

> > > and killing as the only useful forms of social interaction to

> > > comprehend, but there are, believe it or not, other ways of doing

> > > things.

>

> > > Actually, you've already lost. The only way to keep the U.S. economy

> > > going to move to the left -- socialism.

>

> > And the deaths of 150 million due to marxism, and the destruction of

> > their entire economies, and destruction of the principles of liberty,

> > all of which were rejected except by the left wing pimps who prattle...

> > like yourself, about nothing, nothing at all.

>

> > Pure vapor.

> > And how about the anniversary last week of the 4-10 million Stalin

> > starved with his collectivizations? and all the other anniversary's of

> > marxist economic destruction.

>

> > You dumb pimp, you dumbass cross posting leftist... why am I not surprised?

>

> > Mark

>

> Now, now, Mark. Let's not decry your "jewish heritage". Marx was a

> fine philosopher and a good man. And Communism is really just applied

> Judaism, when properly understood. And the Chinese have done quite

> well with Marxism, thankyou very much.

 

They have? Based on what standards? Is it the wonderful standard of

living that the majority of Chinese live by? Perhaps, instead, it is

their world-renown for political, economic, and social freedoms?

Maybe it's the rapid pace of Chinese innovation, creating new

products, new techniques, new ideas for the world to benefit by? If

so could you maybe explain why Canada, a nation of 30M people, is

sending economic aid to China, a nation of over 1Bn people?

 

Um, hooray for Marxism?

 

Pierre

[Guest hal@nospam.org]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:00:32 -0600, "Herbert Cannon"

<hcannon18@cox.net> wrote:

>

><hal@nospam.org> wrote in message

>news:47547a03.351654281@news.newsguy.com...

>> like why is everyone posting several times each to this silly thread?

>> I mean, this is too weird....

>

>Well I am ill and cannot leave; therefore, extremely bored. How about you?

>

I am sorry you are ill. Bird flu? I was wondering why you were

posting multiple times to a thread about Chavez when you can't tell a

democratic socialist from a totalitarian communist, or a dictator from

a penis and a potato.

 

Hal

[Guest hal@nospam.org]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:09:31 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"

<dburkhead@sff.net> wrote:

 

>You do realize you continue to engage in argument ad hominem, don't you?

>

>You do realize that is a logical fallacy, don't you.

>

>You do realize that you are undermining your own position with every post

>you make, don't you?

>

>Actually, you probably don't.

 

coming from a guy who thinks that the cure for poverty is wealth. And

the cure for overconsumption is to consume more.

 

Hal

>

>--

>David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"

>mailto:dburkhead@sff.net "While we live, let us live."

>My webcomic Cold Servings

>http://www.coldservings.com -- Back from hiatus!

>Updates Wednesdays

>

>

>

[Guest Bert Hyman]

In news:nuCdnSZq-uUd48nanZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@giganews.com SteveL

<stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote:

> And if it's the wrong choice (or becomes the wrong choice years

> later) the people can vote in a government that sells it off again.

 

Maybe. Sometimes these things become one-way traps and voting is no

longer an option.

 

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably

the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute

Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such

Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

--

Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com

[Guest Pierre Honeyman]

On Dec 3, 3:05 pm, h...@nospam.org wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:09:31 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"

>

> <dburkh...@sff.net> wrote:

> >You do realize you continue to engage in argument ad hominem, don't you?

>

> >You do realize that is a logical fallacy, don't you.

>

> >You do realize that you are undermining your own position with every post

> >you make, don't you?

>

> >Actually, you probably don't.

>

> coming from a guy who thinks that the cure for poverty is wealth.

 

What is the cure for poverty then?

 

Pierre

[Guest Herbert Cannon]

>>news:47547a03.351654281@news.newsguy.com...

>>> like why is everyone posting several times each to this silly thread?

>>> I mean, this is too weird....

>>

>>Well I am ill and cannot leave; therefore, extremely bored. How about you?

>>

> I am sorry you are ill. Bird flu?

 

I wish - more like bad food.

 

I was wondering why you were

> posting multiple times to a thread about Chavez when you can't tell a

> democratic socialist from a totalitarian communist

 

That is because the only difference is the desire for the democratic

socialist to become the totalitarian commnunist unless stopped by the people

like Chavez was.

His hero was Castro. Birds of a feather flock together. There is no

difference.

 

, or a dictator from

> a penis and a potato.

 

I love you too. Everytime I flushed today, I said there goes Hal again.

[Guest David L. Burkhead]

hal@nospam.org wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:09:31 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"

> <dburkhead@sff.net> wrote:

>

>

>> You do realize you continue to engage in argument ad hominem, don't

>> you?

>>

>> You do realize that is a logical fallacy, don't you.

>>

>> You do realize that you are undermining your own position with every

>> post you make, don't you?

>>

>> Actually, you probably don't.

>

> coming from a guy who thinks that the cure for poverty is wealth.

 

This is a straw man.

> And

> the cure for overconsumption is to consume more.

 

As is this, plus circular logic.

 

--

David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"

mailto:dburkhead@sff.net "While we live, let us live."

My webcomic Cold Servings

http://www.coldservings.com -- Back from hiatus!

Updates Wednesdays

[Guest SteveL]

On 03 Dec 2007 23:17:56 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

>In news:nuCdnSZq-uUd48nanZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@giganews.com SteveL

><stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote:

>

>> And if it's the wrong choice (or becomes the wrong choice years

>> later) the people can vote in a government that sells it off again.

>

>Maybe. Sometimes these things become one-way traps and voting is no

>longer an option.

 

For the sake of argument, why do you say taking public ownership of an

industry endangers the vote? It just doesn't follow. There's no

precedent in other democracies.

 

BTW, although as you pointed out there are passages of the US

constitution that prevent the confiscation of private property, that

has never stopped the authorities from compulsorily purchasing

property from private citizens (e.g. land for a highway etc. etc) when

it suits them.

 

To me that's even worse. To claim power over genuinely private

property like that, whereas a major industry will have so many owners

it's almost collectively owned anyway.

[Guest hal@nospam.org]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:51:23 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"

<dburkhead@sff.net> wrote:

>hal@nospam.org wrote:

>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:09:31 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"

>> <dburkhead@sff.net> wrote:

>>

>>

>>> You do realize you continue to engage in argument ad hominem, don't

>>> you?

>>>

>>> You do realize that is a logical fallacy, don't you.

>>>

>>> You do realize that you are undermining your own position with every

>>> post you make, don't you?

>>>

>>> Actually, you probably don't.

>>

>> coming from a guy who thinks that the cure for poverty is wealth.

>

> This is a straw man.

 

No, that's what you said. You said: overpopulation that is leading to

depletion of worldwide resources is due to poor people having too many

kids, and data shows that rich people have fewer kids, therefore the

cure for depletion of our worldwide resources is to grow the economies

by consuming more therefore reducing overpopulation therefore reducing

resource depletion.

 

No shit. That's what you said. The number of fallacies in all the

that is truly mind boggling.

 

wow

 

Hal

>

>> And

>> the cure for overconsumption is to consume more.

>

> As is this, plus circular logic.

>

>--

>David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"

>mailto:dburkhead@sff.net "While we live, let us live."

>My webcomic Cold Servings

>http://www.coldservings.com -- Back from hiatus!

>Updates Wednesdays

>

>

>

[Guest David L. Burkhead]

hal@nospam.org wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:51:23 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"

> <dburkhead@sff.net> wrote:

>

>> hal@nospam.org wrote:

>>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:09:31 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"

>>> <dburkhead@sff.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>> You do realize you continue to engage in argument ad hominem, don't

>>>> you?

>>>>

>>>> You do realize that is a logical fallacy, don't you.

>>>>

>>>> You do realize that you are undermining your own position with

>>>> every post you make, don't you?

>>>>

>>>> Actually, you probably don't.

>>>

>>> coming from a guy who thinks that the cure for poverty is wealth.

>>

>> This is a straw man.

>

> No, that's what you said. You said: overpopulation that is leading to

> depletion of worldwide resources is due to poor people having too many

> kids, and data shows that rich people have fewer kids,

 

Actually, I didn's speak about individuals, but about societies.

 

Straw man # one.

> therefore the

> cure for depletion of our worldwide resources

 

I didn't say anything about "depletion of our worldwide resources one

way or another. I was just speaking to the topic of population at the time.

 

Straw man # 2.

> is to grow the economies

> by consuming more

 

I did not say this.

 

Grow the economies, yes. "By consuming more" was not said. In fact, I

didn't go into any depth on the issue becaue I _know_ you don't have the

capacity to follow the arguments--as you demonstrate by getting the part

that was said wrong.

> therefore reducing overpopulation therefore reducing

> resource depletion.

 

I didn't say anything about "reducing resource depletion" largely

because what _I_ think of as "resource depletion" and you do are likely to

be completely different things.

> No shit. That's what you said.

 

Since we just demonstrated that it was not.

> The number of fallacies in all the

> that is truly mind boggling.

 

This statement is true--the only problem is that it's the number of

fallacies in your erroneous "restatement" (spelled "complete fabrication")

of my position.

>>> And

>>> the cure for overconsumption is to consume more.

>>

>> As is this, plus circular logic.

 

And there remains your use of circular logic here.

 

--

David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"

mailto:dburkhead@sff.net "While we live, let us live."

My webcomic Cold Servings

http://www.coldservings.com -- Back from hiatus!

Updates Wednesdays

[Guest Sam the Bam]

On Dec 3, Shuurai <Shuura...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Do you think a gun will protect you against nuclear weapons?

>

> Nope. Nor will it protect me against earthquakes,

> tornadoes, floods, or giant meteors.

> Or - and I really hate to even think this - are you actually stupid

> enough to believe that what you said above was somehow clever?

>

> >Are you looking forward to the day when civilization

> >collapses, and you can shoot anyone you want, anytime

> > you want? Are you trying to bring that time about?

>

> I guess we know the answer now.

 

 

This Jerry guy is great... he's like Hal on meth.

Don't chase him off, ok?

 

Sam

[Guest Herbert Cannon]

>

> If there's one thing that the past is truly an indication of here, it

> is that the left has not tended to support Latin American dictators.

>

Check out Bolivia.