Chavez has not shown himself to be unstable at all.More disparaging remarks and propaganda with absolutely no substance.
The failure of the Bush Economy has been described in several financial reports and is happening CURRENTLY.The projected failure is also based on this current negative economic status and the present ongoing war in Iraq, and possibly elsewhere soon if one is to believe the rhetoric from the United States. So this is an incorrect comparison with an economy which is experiencing unprecedented sustained growth for the last three years due entirely to Chavez's fiscal policies made within the context of the current world market. The reasoning , if one can call it that, is that a Socialist system of government can never prosper just because. That's the reasoning, and that's invalid.Especially since Venezuela is NOT a Socialist state, and this is simply another part of the propaganda leveled by America against the country. Independent world bodies do not recognise Venezuela as a Socialist state at all, the only country that claims venezuela is Socialist is the United States. France, Germany,Canada are just some governments that do not ascribe to American style government, social systems and economies and have done quite well for decades. Where they have run into problems is when they have been subject to mass and/or illegal immigration which have strained their internal social services. So your reasoning is invalid. On 4/18/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I don't see the Nationalisation of enterprises which utilise the > > countries non - renewable resources to be a bad thing. > > And that's your first problem. > > > Those 'private industries' were not owned by venezuelans, and they > > were not acting in the intersts of venezuela. A lot of them got their > > holdings under suspicious circumstances from previous regimes. They > > were all foreigners and foreign oil companies. > > They were probably acting in the interests of their business. And it sounds > like the previous regimes are at least partly to blame for this mess. In any > event, going deeper into socialism is only going to make things worse. > > > > > A lot of the land as well was held, acres upon acres. > > > > Think of if three states, Louisianna,texas and iowa were owned by 5 > > wealthy families, some of them Iranian who refused to sell the land to > > the state, or to allow any development on them unless they approve it. > > I'm sure you would be as against 'Nationalisation' then as you are > > now.Actually, I know you would not be against it, you would be all for > > paying these people for the land and claiming it for the State so that > > housing, hospitals and other necessary infrastructure can be built and > > the remaining land sold openly to private business interests. > > I would be against it. > > But that's why we have a thing here called Imminent Domain. The government > can take private land if and only if it is to be used for a necessary public > good, ie a hospital. I'm almost always against ID, but in the ridiculous > extreme case you cited, it would be appropriate. > > > Nevermind the US does not want a UAE firm running it's ports but > > prefers to 'nationalise' it or to give such contracts to countries or > > entities it trusts. You prefer that Venezuela leave all its Oil > > processing and drilling in the hands of countries that have openly > > sought the assassination of their leader and who make threatening > > statements and hostile remarks at every oppurtunity.Makes perfect > > sense ayup. > > And you prefer it be in the hands of one man, one unstable man. Makes > perfect sense ayup. > > > When Chavez does exactly the same thing as all the other industrial > > countries suddenly he is a dictator. > > When he does exactly what Castro did, yes, suddenly he's a dictator. > > > That is nothing more than propaganda, and that is all anyone has > > against Chavez at the moment. until such time as the venezuelan > > economy fails because of his social and economic policies, or he does > > away with democratic and fair elections none of the remarks made > > against him are anything more than speculation. > > Until such time as the United States economy fails because of Bush's social > and economic policies, or he does away with democratic and fair elections, > none of your remarks made against him are anything more than speculation. > > Just pointing out that of COURSE this is just speculation.....but reasoned, > informed, and valid speculation. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:204454 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
