West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Real American on September 27, 2006, 02:41:03 PM
-
Seriously though, people make threads all the time asking what country you would want to move to if you had to leave your home country. But the discussion is never reallly that interesting because everyone mentions the same countries....US, Canada, Britian, Australia, etc. There really isn't any variety. But I think it would be interesting to ask what NON WHITE country they would want to move in. Suddenly the choice gets ALOT harder.
What do you guys think....what non white country would you guys move to if you had to?
-
Cuba
-
South Africa or Brazil
-
Cuba
Why would you want to live in a country that is so poor and has no freedoms?
-
Cuba
Why would you want to live in a country that is so poor and has no freedoms?
It'd be interesting. I guarantee anybody who lives in Cuba for a bit will come back like 'Damn' and come back with much more respect for America, for real. It'd be interesting.
-
South Africa or Brazil
Well those are both considered white countries...Brazil has lots of "white people".
-
UAE, maybe India, or China, Ghana
-
Costa Rica
-
Venezeula would be a real eye opener, a president who has non scripted telephone phone ins, regularly meets and addresses people without his men searching everyone for guns first. A man who is transforming the country with tremendous courage and integrity. Aside from that, Japan would be an interesting place to live I feel. I should add to that Turkey also
-
South Africa or Brazil
Well those are both considered white countries...Brazil has lots of "white people".
And South Africa has alot of British people. Find a country besides one in the middle east that doesn't have alot of white people though.
Were both of those countries meant to be "white countries"?
see what im getting at
-
South Africa or Brazil
Well those are both considered white countries.
South Africa= 9% White, 80% Black
I'd probably pick South Africa myself.
-
You must be crazy south africa? the government decided some 4 years ago that a moratorium was needed on crime statistics for a 10 year period. I think from memory and this was some 6 years ago, that there were over 100.000 reported rapes in south africa and thats reported. The country is so damn violent that they formed their own domestic SAS unit to tackle the daily shootouts, kidnappings and armed robberies that take place. Not to mention that the government is led by a bunch of communists who think that ethnic cleansing of white people is alright as long as it is done subtly, unlike the zimbabwe example.
-
You must be crazy south africa? the government decided some 4 years ago that a moratorium was needed on crime statistics for a 10 year period. I think from memory and this was some 6 years ago, that there were over 100.000 reported rapes in south africa and thats reported. The country is so damn violent that they formed their own domestic SAS unit to tackle the daily shootouts, kidnappings and armed robberies that take place. Not to mention that the government is led by a bunch of communists who think that ethnic cleansing of white people is alright as long as it is done subtly, unlike the zimbabwe example.
I live in the USA, so South Africa could actually be an improvement when it comes to crime. ;D Violent crimes is actually decreasing in South Africa. Rape is high and good luck not having your car jacked. But South Africa is a beautiful country. It's major cities, culture, landscape, (South Africa has about 10% of all the known species of plants on Earth) is amazing. It's economy is decent, positioning it among the top 50 in the world. My 4 uncles all lived in South Africa for a couple years, and they all loved it there.
-
i understand where you are coming from but south africa is far more violent than america particularly when you realise the population is about a tenth of the size also. However as for the rest of what you said, there is no denying its a beautiful place and the economy is doing well over there, however 2 friends of mine and a colleague from work have lived over there also and they were equally enthusiastic when it came to the beauty of the country but said they always lived in fear. As soon as the one guy became a father, he knew it was time to leave not the type of place where you want a kid growing up. However I think you are probably safe on the rape, save for homo rapists ;D
-
Japan
-
i understand where you are coming from but south africa is far more violent than america particularly when you realise the population is about a tenth of the size also. However as for the rest of what you said, there is no denying its a beautiful place and the economy is doing well over there, however 2 friends of mine and a colleague from work have lived over there also and they were equally enthusiastic when it came to the beauty of the country but said they always lived in fear. As soon as the one guy became a father, he knew it was time to leave not the type of place where you want a kid growing up. However I think you are probably safe on the rape, save for homo rapists ;D
Trust me if I were to live in South Africa, I wouldn't walk anywhere without some brass knuckles. I ain't a pushover.
-
1st choice would be REAL AMERICANS mom's pink wet pussy
2nd choice would be Dubai, very nice, isnt that expensive, and they have every luxury any american could ask for.
-
lol I hear ya, another great aspect of venezeula, I believe its legal to carry a firearm, no need for brass knuckles there my friend ;)
-
No need for brass knucks. Just bring Oklin. If some asshole wants to fuck with you, he'll fuck [with] them.
-
italy lol... talk to most italians there be like im not white lol
-
Malaysia, Philippines, Madagascar....for the beautiful weather, people, culture, sandy beaches and pristine waters and the food dear Lord the food.
but I would still maintain my Aussie citizenship and I would need dollars so that I could ball over their weak currency.
-
The Palestinian Autonomy!
-
Japan
japan or india
-
The Palestinian Autonomy!
u already live in palestine
-
italy lol... talk to most italians there be like im not white lol
lmao so true! I was actually gonna put Italy on my list. haha. I always say I'm not white, I'm mediteranian, lol. Especially being from southern italy.
-
u already live in palestine
Yeah but I would like to be able to enjoy the 3rd world economy standards of those fortunate residents of Gaza and the West Bank.
-
italy lol... talk to most italians there be like im not white lol
lmao so true! I was actually gonna put Italy on my list. haha. I always say I'm not white, I'm mediteranian, lol. Especially being from southern italy.
Dennis Hopper in True Romance put it so eligantly
Ya know, I read a lot. Especially about things... about history. I find that shit fascinating. Here's a fact I don't know whether you know or not. Sicilians were spawned by niggers.
It's a fact. Yeah. You see, uh, Sicilians have, uh, black blood pumpin' through their hearts. Hey, no, if eh, if eh, if you don't believe me, uh, you can look it up. Hundreds and hundreds of years ago, uh, you see, uh, the Moors conquered Sicily. And the Moors are niggers.
So you see, way back then, uh, Sicilians were like, uh, wops from Northern Italy. Ah, they all had blonde hair and blue eyes, but, uh, well, then the Moors moved in there, and uh, well, they changed the whole country. They did so much fuckin' with Sicilian women, huh? That they changed the whole bloodline forever. That's why blonde hair and blue eyes became black hair and dark skin. You know, it's absolutely amazing to me to think that to this day, hundreds of years later, that, uh, that Sicilians still carry that nigger gene. Now this... [Coccotti busts out laughing] No, I'm, no, I'm quoting... history. It's written. It's a fact, it's written.
Your ancestors are niggers. Uh-huh. [Starts laughing, too] Hey. Yeah. And, and your great-great-great-great grandmother fucked a nigger, ho, ho, yeah, and she had a half-nigger kid... now, if that's a fact, tell me, am I lying? 'Cause you, you're part eggplant. [All laugh]
-
italy lol... talk to most italians there be like im not white lol
lmao so true! I was actually gonna put Italy on my list. haha. I always say I'm not white, I'm mediteranian, lol. Especially being from southern italy.
Dennis Hopper in True Romance put it so eligantly
Ya know, I read a lot. Especially about things... about history. I find that shit fascinating. Here's a fact I don't know whether you know or not. Sicilians were spawned by niggers.
It's a fact. Yeah. You see, uh, Sicilians have, uh, black blood pumpin' through their hearts. Hey, no, if eh, if eh, if you don't believe me, uh, you can look it up. Hundreds and hundreds of years ago, uh, you see, uh, the Moors conquered Sicily. And the Moors are niggers.
So you see, way back then, uh, Sicilians were like, uh, wops from Northern Italy. Ah, they all had blonde hair and blue eyes, but, uh, well, then the Moors moved in there, and uh, well, they changed the whole country. They did so much fuckin' with Sicilian women, huh? That they changed the whole bloodline forever. That's why blonde hair and blue eyes became black hair and dark skin. You know, it's absolutely amazing to me to think that to this day, hundreds of years later, that, uh, that Sicilians still carry that nigger gene. Now this... [Coccotti busts out laughing] No, I'm, no, I'm quoting... history. It's written. It's a fact, it's written.
Your ancestors are niggers. Uh-huh. [Starts laughing, too] Hey. Yeah. And, and your great-great-great-great grandmother fucked a nigger, ho, ho, yeah, and she had a half-nigger kid... now, if that's a fact, tell me, am I lying? 'Cause you, you're part eggplant. [All laugh]
tis true
italians have their own Nurteno/Sureno beef
-
probably ;D Kazakastan
-
Me personally, I would commit suicide before living in a non white country. Non whites don't even want to live in them, so I know that I definitely wouldn't want to!
-
Venezeula would be a real eye opener, a president who has non scripted telephone phone ins, regularly meets and addresses people without his men searching everyone for guns first. A man who is transforming the country with tremendous courage and integrity. Aside from that, Japan would be an interesting place to live I feel. I should add to that Turkey also
Venezuela is a nice country, but your perceptions of Chaves are off the mark. I was there once. The only thing venezuela has going for it are drop dead goregous women that are desperate for any man. They have no money, no jobs available to them, and president that is sendng them back in time.
When I was in venezuela, Chavez was not well liked. In fact, Chavez uses Bush, like Bush uses 9/11. He uses it to manipulate the voters.
What good does Chaves do his country by bitching about Bush? None. But it resonates politically with the more ignorant in the country. This was the views expressed to me by many venezuelans, and by foreign policy magazine.
Chavez targets the largest demographic in Venezuela. The poor. But in doing so, he's only working to hold political power. He wants to become president for life. He's loved by the poor, so of course he can parade around like a hero. But what good things has he really done?
-
Venezeula would be a real eye opener, a president who has non scripted telephone phone ins, regularly meets and addresses people without his men searching everyone for guns first. A man who is transforming the country with tremendous courage and integrity. Aside from that, Japan would be an interesting place to live I feel. I should add to that Turkey also
Venezuela is a nice country, but your perceptions of Chaves are off the mark. I was there once. The only thing venezuela has going for it are drop dead goregous women that are desperate for any man. They have no money, no jobs available to them, and president that is sendng them back in time.
When I was in venezuela, Chavez was not well liked. In fact, Chavez uses Bush, like Bush uses 9/11. He uses it to manipulate the voters.
What good does Chaves do his country by bitching about Bush? None. But it resonates politically with the more ignorant in the country. This was the views expressed to me by many venezuelans, and by foreign policy magazine.
Chavez targets the largest demographic in Venezuela. The poor. But in doing so, he's only working to hold political power. He wants to become president for life. He's loved by the poor, so of course he can parade around like a hero. But what good things has he really done?
first u say that chavez targets the poor that u admit is the largest demographic. then u say they love him. but then u say he does nothing for them. so are the poor of venezuela brainwashed fucks who just follw their leader for no damn reason (good mornin america!) or perhaps they are actually benefittin from chavez policies?
from an elite business point of view, the economy could be much better run. although some would say the nationalization and social program funding increases are minor hiccups that the country has to deal with.
i agree with you on the women tip. ive been with several venezuelan women...well only 2. but both get 2 blunts up
-
He meets the public on a face to face basis, regardless of his motives he is ploughing in mass investment into venezeula. literacy rates have improved dramatically. He has raised the slave minimum wage of venezeula, in an oil deal he has with cuba he sends physicians into the poorest neighbourhoods of venezeula. He encourages criticism, he encourages free speech, he is brave, he could have been killed when he was kidnapped. He is a genuine patriot you can tell that by the way he so passionately encourages people to learn the constition to defend their rights.
Compare that to the United States, the medical bills are astronomical, you have a president who was installed into power through election fraud. Neocons have actually used the term insurgents to describes dissenting americans. Look at the way in which the people in new orleans were deliberately abandoned look at fema deliberately blocking supplies from getting through, all documented. Compare and contrast chavez's line with that of Bush who described the constitution as a piece of paper. the laughable and transparents heroic mccains amendments to a legal framework for torture. The blatant violations of the consitution, the police state mentality which is swooping upon europe but particularly America.
He is hated by the wealthy because the country's wealth has been in the hands of a very small group of people for so long and they can see their wealth under threat from this redistribution, from this man who actually gives a shit about the poorest. They do not like that one bit, they do not like their power and influence being put under threat, before Chavez they were very happy with their relationship with the U.S because the status quo was maintained.
-
He meets the public on a face to face basis, regardless of his motives he is ploughing in mass investment into venezeula. literacy rates have improved dramatically. He has raised the slave minimum wage of venezeula, in an oil deal he has with cuba he sends physicians into the poorest neighbourhoods of venezeula. He encourages criticism, he encourages free speech, he is brave, he could have been killed when he was kidnapped. He is a genuine patriot you can tell that by the way he so passionately encourages people to learn the constition to defend their rights.
Compare that to the United States, the medical bills are astronomical, you have a president who was installed into power through election fraud. Neocons have actually used the term insurgents to describes dissenting americans. Look at the way in which the people in new orleans were deliberately abandoned look at fema deliberately blocking supplies from getting through, all documents. Compare and contrast chavez's line with that of Bush who described the constitution as a piece of paper. the laughable and transparents heroic mccains amendments to a legal framework for torture. The blatant violations of the consitution, the police state mentality which is swooping upon europe but particularly America.
What a load of bullshit.
-
If you are dismissing that as bullshit, then you must really have your head in the clouds.! In fact I didnt really delve particularly deeply into your question and those comments were some of the lighter ones I could have used, there is not one thing within that, that isnt factual,
-
By the way, I wonder what the poor in Venezuela think of Chavez using oil resources to buy influence across the region instead of at home. I am talking about his publicity stunts like giving discounted gas to people in places in Harlem when his own citizens are the ones that really need the relief. He doesn't care about them, he only cares about raising his own status. He also made a fool of himself with his UN speech.
When the economny tanks under all his BS socialist policies maybe the people of Venezuela will wake up.
-
If you are dismissing that as bullshit, then you must really have your head in the clouds.! In fact I didnt really delve particularly deeply into your question and those comments were some of the lighter ones I could have used, there is not one thing within that, that isnt factual,
When you say a bunch of BS like Chaves encourages free speech and dissent, that their standard of living is improving, that the US elections were stolen, etc I am going to call you on it.
-
Oh please, there is over 3 trillion unaccounted for in the pentagons finances, america single handedly props up Israel, I wonder how the people of Katrina feel about all of this money being either stolen or given to Israel. I wonder how those who can't afford the medical bills feel about americas policy here. I wonder how the american people feel about the trillions being spent on a war in their name but only to the benefit of the elite few. When you put that alongside what you said your criticism doesnt hold weight at all. As for Chavez encouraging free speech he has said it many times before, the private channels continually and aggressively attack him also there are no restraints put on them. As for the election being stolen it is no great secret that those electronic voting machines can be hacked into quite easily, it is no great revelation that thousands of democrat voters were banned from voting. I could go on about that particular subject but you should watch many of the documentaries that have been done about it. Greg Palast did an excellent one about 2 years I think.
He made a fool out of himself at the U.N? some of these within the Bush administration are evil, they are sick and twisted fucks, one example being neocons urging nuclear strikes on Iran. Nah he didnt make a fool out of himself he said what a lot of people come to realise. These are the idealogies of evil people. John Yoo Alberto Gonzalez, secret torture facilities, kidnapping of people, secret trials, phosphorous weapons being used on a civilian population. He was absolutely right in his assertion that Bush is the devil, he hasnt got brains but obviously he agrees with this idealogy, although clearly Cheney is the main cog in the leadership.
-
Venezeula would be a real eye opener, a president who has non scripted telephone phone ins, regularly meets and addresses people without his men searching everyone for guns first. A man who is transforming the country with tremendous courage and integrity. Aside from that, Japan would be an interesting place to live I feel. I should add to that Turkey also
Venezuela is a nice country, but your perceptions of Chaves are off the mark. I was there once. The only thing venezuela has going for it are drop dead goregous women that are desperate for any man. They have no money, no jobs available to them, and president that is sendng them back in time.
When I was in venezuela, Chavez was not well liked. In fact, Chavez uses Bush, like Bush uses 9/11. He uses it to manipulate the voters.
What good does Chaves do his country by bitching about Bush? None. But it resonates politically with the more ignorant in the country. This was the views expressed to me by many venezuelans, and by foreign policy magazine.
Chavez targets the largest demographic in Venezuela. The poor. But in doing so, he's only working to hold political power. He wants to become president for life. He's loved by the poor, so of course he can parade around like a hero. But what good things has he really done?
what you are saying is contrasting with a documentary i saw about the country 1 year ago i which they were saying that the people in venezuela never had so much money in they pockets (thanks to the petro dollars). Sure they are still poor compared to american obese people but it's getting better there
-
Hey Virtuoso, about your beloved Hugo Chavez and his love for the consitituion of his country. Check out the following news article.....Chavez has announced that he wants to change their constitution to end term limits on the presidency and allow him to run more than Venezuelan law allows. This is the man you are glorifying for his love of democracy?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194557,00.html
Chavez Proposes Referendum to Stay President Until 2031
Sunday, May 07, 2006
CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez said that if opposition parties boycott December's presidential election he would call a referendum asking voters to decide whether he should govern Venezuela for the next 25 years.
Speaking Saturday at a stadium packed with supporters in central Lara state, Chavez rejected allegations he was a power-hungry tyrant but said he might seek to extend his rule beyond current term limits if the opposition pulls out of the presidential vote, as it did last year's congressional election.
"I am going to call a referendum," Chavez said. "I am going to ask you, all the people, if you agree with Chavez being president until 2031."
The Venezuelan Constitution allows a president to be re-elected only once in immediate succession. Chavez is eligible for re-election to another six-year term in December, but if he wins he wouldn't be able to run again in 2012.
It wasn't clear if Chavez, 51, was talking about holding a legally binding vote to eliminate limits on re-election or proposing a plebiscite. Before Chavez took the stage, thousands of his supporters chanted: "Oh, no! Chavez won't go!"
Opposition leaders accuse Chavez, a former paratroop commander first elected in 1998, of becoming increasingly authoritarian and opening dangerous divisions along class lines in Venezuela — the world's fifth largest oil exporter.
Chavez supporters won all 167 seats in the National Assembly on Dec. 4 after major opposition parties boycotted the election, saying they did not trust Venezuela's electoral system or the country's elections council. The opposition has raised doubts about the nation's electoral registry, an electronic voting system and electoral audits conducted by the council.
Chavez on Saturday slammed political foes for suggesting that the elections council, which was appointed recently by pro-government lawmakers, is biased in his favor.
"They already started saying the recently appointed elections council is subordinate to Chavez, that fraud is being prepared," he said.
Polls indicate Chavez is likely to win the Dec. 3 election, and international observers have signed off on recent votes as fair.
Four government opponents have announced plans to run against Chavez, although not all of them have agreed to participate in primaries to choose a single opposition candidate.
The opposition candidates include Teodoro Petkoff, a newspaper editor fiercely critical of Chavez; William Ojeda, a journalist and former Chavez ally; Julio Borges, a conservative attorney; and Roberto Smith, an ex-infrastructure minister.
-
I am not even going to comment on that one single article, its very dangerous to do so as its from fox news. This could be another false story like the one they brought out about Iran forcing the Jews to wear unique clothing identifying themselves. However I am not going to be a fake about it, I will research into that and private message you my response when I know more about it.
-
Me personally, I would commit suicide before living in a non white country. Non whites don't even want to live in them, so I know that I definitely wouldn't want to!
Don't worry, you'll be living in a non-white country sooner than you know it. :laugh:
I don't like living in a mostly-white country. Especially in the South with all these fucking hicks...some days I want to put the 100-round drum in my AK and go shoot up a trailer park.
-
Me personally, I would commit suicide before living in a non white country. Non whites don't even want to live in them, so I know that I definitely wouldn't want to!
Yeah, that's why they're having their babies in Namibia.
-
I just found this Ant its in response to your above article
By Justin Delacour
Latin America News Review
May 8, 2006
A little scrutiny of a recent Associated Press report about Venezuela provides a lesson in how the English-language press often gets the story wrong. Take the first sentence: "President Hugo Chavez said Saturday that Venezuelan voters should have the chance to decide whether he should govern the country for the next 25 years."
No, such a referendum would not be about "whether he should govern the country for the next 25 years." A referendum would be about whether Chavez would be permitted to run every six years and --in the event that he were to continue winning elections-- serve multiple presidential terms. The AP report's opening sentence makes it sound as if such a referendum would do away with elections in Venezuela, as if its intent would be to grant Chavez a new 25-year term in office! The website of The Calgary Sun even titles the wire report "Chavez seeking 25-year term"!!
This is obviously an extremely poor piece of reporting. Chavez made it clear that, if the opposition committed to participating in the upcoming presidential election, he would not convoke a referendum to end presidential term limits. He explained that the intent of his threat to convoke such a referendum was not to perpetuate himself in power but rather to defend the Bolivarian Revolution.
Fortunately, Agence France Press (AFP) got the story right. The opening sentence of AFP's Spanish-language report reads, "Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez claimed Saturday that, if the opposition decides not to run candidates in the December presidential election, he could decree a referendum to permit his reelection for multiple terms until 2031."
So the choice for the opposition is simple. If they don't want a referendum that would end presidential term limits, they shouldn't pull out of the upcoming presidential election. As far as I'm concerned, the threat of a referendum is a perfectly reasonable (and democratic) way to dissuade the opposition from trying to delegitimize Venezuela's electoral process.
When Venezuela's opposition knows it's going to lose an election, it has a tendency to try to delegitimize the electoral process. Instead of facing up to the fact that it is unpopular, the business-led opposition tries to shift the blame for its electoral misfortunes to the National Electoral Council (CNE). The opposition claims that the CNE could commit "fraud" and that the vote might not be secret. Opposition conspiracy theories of this nature are legion. Never mind that there have been international observers on hand that have testified to the fairness of Venezuela's elections. Never mind that even the opposition's own polls show that Chavez is much more popular than they are.
In other words, many members of the opposition aren't really interested in trying to win elections because they know that they lack popular support. Many in the opposition prefer, instead, to try to create the impression internationally that Venezuela's electoral process is illegitimate.
One has to understand that, given the combination of the opposition's economic interests and political incompetence, it is very desperate. Since it is unable to attract popular support domestically, the opposition resorts to attempts to draw more U.S. hostility toward Chavez in hopes that such hostility might somehow weaken or destroy his presidency. Electoral boycotts are part and parcel of this strategy. The opposition wants to create the (false) impression internationally that Venezuela is another Ukraine and that Chavez wins elections by "fraud," etc. etc. That's what Chavez is up against.
OAS General Secretary Jose Miguel Insulza effectively summed up the problem that Chavez faces when he said the following about the opposition's boycott of legislative elections last December:
"We had a problem with the Venezuelan opposition, which assured us that they would not withdraw from the [electoral] process if certain conditions were met. These were met and, despite this, they withdrew."
Insulza continued, "if the path of abstention is chosen, then one cannot complain that the entire parliament is in the hands of one's political adversary."] END OF QUOTE
The blog http://lefti.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_lefti_archive.html also covered this quite well. One poster there made this quite accurate observation:
"The direct context of these statements should be kept in mind. ... [Chavez] is proposing this if the opposition boycotts the election. Given the opposition's demonization of Chavez, I think he is trying to irritate them while driving home the point that he is extremely popular in Venezuela and COULD win such an election. That's an important point - because the tactic of a boycott is meant to imply that he is not popular but somehow rigging the elections (not true, of course, as the Carter Center and others have said)."
In fact, Chavez is in no way, shape or form proposing a 25-year term, that is not what he said or has ever said. Of course those who've already made up their minds that he's someone to hate and fear won't listen to reality. They live in their own petty little universe of terror of foreign brown guys. I find it amazing how the western press, pundits, and the general public (like American rightwing dittoheads) time after time after time after time (decade after decade after decade) are driven to a hysterical frenzy over imagined threats of a perpetual series of nasty (usually brown) foreign leaders who are elevated to devils and demons, lunatics, something out of a Hammer horror film.
-
That article doesn't mean anything. Chavez is still trying to change Vanaezuela's constitution to do away with term limits and allow him to run as many times as he wants. This is your champion of democracy?
-
Sorry my bad ant dont know why i said your article. the article doesnt mean anything? lol please just stop now, so you can not see that the fox news article is heavily spun to give the impression that another election will never be held again. You are an absolute joke you worship a republican government which is the most criminal, deceitful dangerous american government there has possibly ever been.
-
Listen, I'm not going to comment on Chavez sincerity. It's never good to do such a thing, as its entirely possible that Bush has the best of intentions as well. In fact, I'd imagine many of the worst leaders in the world had good intentions, Hitler being the often used example.
But, despite good intentions, Chavez is leading Venezeula down the wrong path. Chavez is a champion of the left, because he is applying far-left thinking almost entirely across the board. What's great about leftist thinking, is its targetted at the motivations of the poor. It speaks to them, even if it doesn't help them.
For example, poor people love to hear "you're getting more money" but they really dont care where that money is coming from, or how much worse off the country will be because that money was given to them. So to Tech who thinks I contradicted myself because I said he's loved by the poor, but still a bad president. Trust me, I did not. Rather, your reasoning is off. Just because a president is liked by the poor doesn't mean he is doing things in their best interest. People often desire things that are not in their best interests. Why do poor people gamble more, and do drugs more than middle class? It's really not uncommon for people to do things, or support ideas, that don't help them. Because on the surface what Chavez is doing seems to be great for them.
Essentially he is doing this.... he takes massive amounts of oil revenue, and invests it in programs that supposedly help the poor. Some of the programs give money directly too the poor. But this is a questionable method. Especially when you consider the demographics of Venezuela. It's a poor country... so what is the harder thing to do as a politician? give away money to the poor, or invest in other things that aren't as tangible to your largest constituency? Obviously, the easiest thing to do is just give money away to the poor. Which is what Chavez is doing, and its why he is so loved by the poor. But the poor are in no position to judge correctly the net benefits of Chavez's investments. If they were informed and wise enough to do such a thing, they more than likely wouldn't be poor.
So what else is Chavez doing? Nationalizing industry, raising minimum wage, and a host of other things that discourage investment. I saw this with my own eyes when I was there. Businesses don't want to invest in Venezuela because they're scared of Chavez. Now, regardless of what everyone wants to believe, businesses are what lift people out of poverty. I talked to many business people in Venezuela. Chavez is making their lives much harder.
Some examples,
1) he created tons of red tape so its difficult to even start a business
2) he regulates foreign competition so its difficult to get access to good services from foreign firms.
3) he nationalizes industry, which just scares the shit out of any business person. Why build a company? if the state can just take you over, and kick you out on ur ass.
Other problems in venezuela. They've money is worthless, and their entire banking system is completely fucked. It's ridiculously time consuming to make transactions over 1000$. Their roads are fucked too. Travel is a bitch. Their airports blow, and because of Chavez its much more difficult to get in and out of Venezuela because he kicked the foreign airlines out for the most part.
Maybe he is geniunely trying to help the poor. But your way off if you think he is this socialist hero. You're way off if you even think socialism would work all that well.
-
it's already like that in canada, u can get elected as many times as u can
-
if you mother fuckers can say italy i'm saying that too AND spain
-
italy and spain ... those fuckin wannabe latinos :D
id choose some asian shit, a place with good buddhism/taoism spots, and not too much oppression from the crazy govt
-
Japan
-
Ant he is raising the educational levels, raising the literacy levels these arent ill thought out policies a strong economies has to have a strong backbonein the form of the people having sufficient skills. We are still talking about a terrible minimum wage but it has risen slightly which can only be a good thing. We are taling about people that without that free health care, who would simply die. Morally to let them sufer would be totally unacceptable and improving the nations health can also only improve the economy. There has been so mcuh rampant corruption in venezeula, did you ask the people what it was like before chavez? they really did live under a brutal dictatorship before him. I am not saying he is perfect but I do think that it would be a really intriguing experience living there. He has changed the country immensely this idea that he is investing wrongly I just can't agree with he is investing in the people to bring about a better standard of life for them.
-
Again I apologise for somehow mentioning your name when it was that dimwitted clown real american asking me lol.
-
You[re speaking with certainty which is almost always WRONG. Stop talking in definitives.
A few things...
"Raising minimum wage can only be a good thing"
No it can't only be a good thing. Economic decisions always have "trade-offs." You need to stop thinking that every liberal idea is good, and every conservative idea is bad. There are bad things that happen when you raise minimum wage. I'm 90% sure you will always refuse to believe this, but it is true. You really should do some research, because I'm also 90% sure that you never took anytime to research this possibility.
"he is raising education levels, raising literacy levels"
Yeah, supposedly this is true. But so what? Look, every politician pushes good reforms and bad ones. Big deal, I'm unimpressed. He is also doing many things that are bad for his country. Like nationalizing industry.
"it would be intriguing to live in venezuela"
it would be interesting to live in any country. But it really annoys me that you seem to think venezuela is this liberal paradise. It is NOT. Most of the country is extremely poor. There is tons of crime. In general you can't go out once the sun goes down. People are scared to even let their kids go out past 6-8 o'clock. There is still tons of corruption. The business climate is getting worse not better. The banking system sucks. The only thing venezuela has going for it, is tons and tons of beautiful women, and lots of natural resources
Finally, don't talk about what a strong economy has to have, because you a) don't understand economics and b) don't care to educate yourself enough to clearly understanding economic thinking. You only want to hear the side that confirms your existing worldview, just like Cwalker loves stuff that confirms his worldview. All chavez is doing, is exploiting natural resource wealth to make himself look good. Anyone that wants to become president for life in Venezuela could do the same thing. That being, take oil revenues, and spend spend spend spend spend, so you look like a savior. Big deal.
In the end, socialist policies are destined to fail. They ignore economic realities, just like you do.
Here's a good place to start if you want to learn ecomics... Read Greg Mankiws blog. He's a harvard professor that wrote the most used book on economics.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/
Granted, a blog isn't a true education. So I'd also recommend his textbooks, and there are plenty of other good economic books that help you learn both sides. If I get some time too, I'll dig out the Foreign Policy article I recently read on Chavez.
-
Your speaking in definites which is wrong completely wrong I had to study a series of economics modules during my first year of uni, economics was also encompassed within some parts of the business studies course I took at college. It is bemusing that you defend the right to pay people as literal slaves, he hasnt changed the minimum wage beyond all recognition he has made it slightly more bearable, the minimum wage is still extremely poor though. You make these ill thought suggestions that economists don't see minimum wages as a positive, that is just completely false and misleading. I will reemphasise what I have said before when the minimum wage was finally introduced over here in england and the rest of britain it was actually found to have a positive effect because it was increasing peoples disposable incomes. Business leaders who prior to the implementation of the minimum wage were warning that it would lead to mass unemployment, were made to look foolish when they changed their minds. I know that there is still a mass wave of crime in venezeula, heck you show me one nation within south america which isnt riddled with crime. I said the situation for the masses is improving and it is you may see steps like improving the literacy rate and giving free health care to the people as small insignificant things but to them these are massive steps forward a real improvement. Again this is a man who despite the constant smearing and clearly criminally poisonous propoganda by tthe neocon media like that fox news article illustrated all too well is a much more tolerant man than the previous dictatorships who acted as U.S bitches. Privatisation and nationalisation both have their good and bad points as you well know, whether they work depends upon the people running things.
Clearly this man is a threat to the U.S and he knows full well that the world needs the oil, he is using the revenues to better the life for his people. In many ways the country is heading down the opposite direction to the U.S because contray to what you suggest the Bush administration does not give a shit about americans, you tell that to the parents of songs and daughters which are dying on a daily basis in the middle east, you tell that to the katrina victims who were left hung out to dry, you tell that to the rescue workers at ground zero who have contracted terrible respiratory conditions, and then what does the government do? it falsifies the reports telling everyone that everything is fine the air perfectly safe., You tell that to the soldiers who have been exposed to the effect of depleted uranium poisoning, back when DU was first used they issued soldiers with manuals telling them about the deadly effects and how each area in which DU has been used should be disinfected. Soldiers are now going to war oblivious to the fact that their own weapons could probably kill them. I find it almost funny in an ironic sense that you should bring up Chavez in a disparaging light when compared to these psychotic criminals.
-
Your speaking in definites which is wrong completely wrong I had to study a series of economics modules during my first year of uni, economics was also encompassed within some parts of the business studies course I took at college. It is bemusing that you defend the right to pay people as literal slaves, he hasnt changed the minimum wage beyond all recognition he has made it slightly more bearable, the minimum wage is still extremely poor though.
Great, you took a few classes. So did a lot of people that don't really understand economics thoroughly. Heck, I don't understand economics thoroughly. The reality is, economics is a complicated subject matter, but people don't view it as such. We think that we're all entitled to a meaningful opinion on economic issues. This is wrong, and unfair intellectually. I don't think for a moment I know things with certainty, but I do know I've spent many more hours debating economic issues than you. I have a small library of economic texts that I've read through. I make it a point to read both left and right economists cuz I want to know what makes the most sense. But, still I don't think I know everything. The difference is, you think you know things with certainty.
You make these ill thought suggestions that economists don't see minimum wages as a positive, that is just completely false and misleading.
Many economists don't, some do. But what all good economists agree on, is that there are trade-offs for minimum wage increases. It's not an absolute positive. There are side-effects to every economic policy. The question is, is there a net positive or a net negative. And, are there alternative strategies that would achieve an objective more efficiently. I am guessing you spend zero time contemplating the negative effects of minimum raise wages.
I will reemphasise what I have said before when the minimum wage was finally introduced over here in england and the rest of britain it was actually found to have a positive effect because it was increasing peoples disposable incomes. Business leaders who prior to the implementation of the minimum wage were warning that it would lead to mass unemployment, were made to look foolish when they changed their minds.
This is pure subjective speculation. Send me a thorough economic explanation of this topic, and I'll consider it. Most intelligent economists that I read don't predict massive negative effects on the economy when you raise minimum wages. They just dont think its an optimal strategy for helping society. In fact, the problem with most economic policies, is that the side-effects are usually subtle. That's why people judge economic policies more by their description than by their net effect. It's not easy to see the net effect, it is easy to understand a policies intentions.
I know that there is still a mass wave of crime in venezeula, heck you show me one nation within south america which isnt riddled with crime. I said the situation for the masses is improving and it is you may see steps like improving the literacy rate and giving free health care to the people as small insignificant things but to them these are massive steps forward a real improvement. Again this is a man who despite the constant smearing and clearly criminally poisonous propoganda by tthe neocon media like that fox news article illustrated all too well is a much more tolerant man than the previous dictatorships who acted as U.S bitches.
I'm not talking about whether this guy is good or bad as a person. I'm just trying to let you know that you are way off base when you immediately assume that Chavez is some liberal hero just because he bad-mouths Bush.
Privatisation and nationalisation both have their good and bad points as you well know, whether they work depends upon the people running things.
Oh, so you can understand there are too sides to the nationlization debate, but not the minimum wage debate. How convenient, considering nationalization is a far-left utopia. Unforunately, the economic perspective is exactly what you said. The realists know that nationalization would be interesting if only you could find "philosophy kings" to manage the economy. But the problem is, philosophy kings only exist in Plato's Republic. They don't exist in real life. The french government right now is building a search company to complete with google. It's called quaero. Let's see how well that goes. More than likely its gonna fall on its face. Just like every other attempt by government to control industry.
contray to what you suggest the Bush administration does not give a shit about americans, you tell that to the parents of songs and daughters which are dying on a daily basis in the middle east, you tell that to the katrina victims who were left hung out to dry, you tell that to the rescue workers at ground zero who have contracted terrible respiratory conditions, and then what does the government do?
What exactly are you talking about here. I never said the policies of GWB are good for America.
I find it almost funny in an ironic sense that you should bring up Chavez in a disparaging light when compared to these psychotic criminals.
Now the truth. The only reason why you fell in love with Chavez is because he bad mouthed Bush. Admittedly, I too, enjoyed hearing him trash talk Bush. But, that's no way to judge a man. This is the most bullshit statement you made. Attacking my arguement by comparing Chavez to Bush, and suggesting I'm pro-bush. I'm far from it. But I'm not gonna be a fool and worship this guy just because he says bad things about Bush.
I try to see reality. And the reality is, Chavez is not a hero. He's a politician... who knows if he is good or bad as a person. But I do know, he isn't this mythical hero that you want to believe he is. And that is my main point. Get over the worship of this guy.
-
Lol I will respond to you in a private message otherwise it's going to be hogging the forum.
-
By the way, I wonder what the poor in Venezuela think of Chavez using oil resources to buy influence across the region instead of at home. I am talking about his publicity stunts like giving discounted gas to people in places in Harlem when his own citizens are the ones that really need the relief. He doesn't care about them, he only cares about raising his own status. He also made a fool of himself with his UN speech.
When the economny tanks under all his BS socialist policies maybe the people of Venezuela will wake up.
does your mother shave or trim her pubes?
-
Listen, I'm not going to comment on Chavez sincerity. It's never good to do such a thing, as its entirely possible that Bush has the best of intentions as well. In fact, I'd imagine many of the worst leaders in the world had good intentions, Hitler being the often used example.
But, despite good intentions, Chavez is leading Venezeula down the wrong path. Chavez is a champion of the left, because he is applying far-left thinking almost entirely across the board. What's great about leftist thinking, is its targetted at the motivations of the poor. It speaks to them, even if it doesn't help them.
For example, poor people love to hear "you're getting more money" but they really dont care where that money is coming from, or how much worse off the country will be because that money was given to them. So to Tech who thinks I contradicted myself because I said he's loved by the poor, but still a bad president. Trust me, I did not. Rather, your reasoning is off. Just because a president is liked by the poor doesn't mean he is doing things in their best interest. People often desire things that are not in their best interests. Why do poor people gamble more, and do drugs more than middle class? It's really not uncommon for people to do things, or support ideas, that don't help them. Because on the surface what Chavez is doing seems to be great for them.
Essentially he is doing this.... he takes massive amounts of oil revenue, and invests it in programs that supposedly help the poor. Some of the programs give money directly too the poor. But this is a questionable method. Especially when you consider the demographics of Venezuela. It's a poor country... so what is the harder thing to do as a politician? give away money to the poor, or invest in other things that aren't as tangible to your largest constituency? Obviously, the easiest thing to do is just give money away to the poor. Which is what Chavez is doing, and its why he is so loved by the poor. But the poor are in no position to judge correctly the net benefits of Chavez's investments. If they were informed and wise enough to do such a thing, they more than likely wouldn't be poor.
So what else is Chavez doing? Nationalizing industry, raising minimum wage, and a host of other things that discourage investment. I saw this with my own eyes when I was there. Businesses don't want to invest in Venezuela because they're scared of Chavez. Now, regardless of what everyone wants to believe, businesses are what lift people out of poverty. I talked to many business people in Venezuela. Chavez is making their lives much harder.
Some examples,
1) he created tons of red tape so its difficult to even start a business
2) he regulates foreign competition so its difficult to get access to good services from foreign firms.
3) he nationalizes industry, which just scares the shit out of any business person. Why build a company? if the state can just take you over, and kick you out on ur ass.
Other problems in venezuela. They've money is worthless, and their entire banking system is completely fucked. It's ridiculously time consuming to make transactions over 1000$. Their roads are fucked too. Travel is a bitch. Their airports blow, and because of Chavez its much more difficult to get in and out of Venezuela because he kicked the foreign airlines out for the most part.
Maybe he is geniunely trying to help the poor. But your way off if you think he is this socialist hero. You're way off if you even think socialism would work all that well.
this is the problem, your facts here are skewed too. i dont profess to be a expert on venezuela but several things u must consider.
1st- the majority of the people of venezuela are better off now than before.
2nd- for all the bitching about socialist policies, i sure hope youre not implying that applying neoliberal policies to venezuela would help them more?
you do know thats what they were doing before right? when 85% of the land was in the hands of 15% of the people. when huge elite run monopolies basically dominated the economy.
You have this assumption that socialist policies is basically soviet collective farms. take into consideration the still existent although heavily marginilized private sector in venezuela and the huge oil revenues, more of which by the way are coming back to venezuela than before.
u fail to adress social cleavages in venezuela, white/black, rich/poor that always complicate discussion on venezuela.
dont get me wrong, the economy is fucked in venezuela, and chavez's misguided policies has had alot to do with that. international investment is done, the amount of foreign reserves is down and youre right , now is not necessarily the best time to do business but its not a clear cut situation here as economics rarely is. but unless you consider the previous regimes neglect, the influence of america in destabilizing not only chavez govt but the society as well through its backing of strikes etc, then your argument isnt too credible.
-
the policies I oppose....
1) governement nationalization of industry.
2) minimum wage raises
3) massive increases in government spending... why? because it amounts to bribery. Any politician could use oil revenue to invest if they want to win points. It takes a lot more political courage not to spend, than it does to spend.
Also, in regards to:
1st- the majority of the people of venezuela are better off now than before.
These types of analysis are biased. Firstly, "better off" in what way. And "better off" for how long. If you make it harder for businesses to function government supporting improvements in well-being are fleeting.
Again, I'm not saying Chavez is worse than the guy before him. Nor am I saying he has bad intentions for his people. I'm just saying, he isn't this liberal hero that we should all be worshipping.
-
Virtuso. It's not exactly on this issue, but here is a relevant link
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6813529239937418232&q=milton+friedman
-
. He is also doing many things that are bad for his country. Like nationalizing industry.
i agree with u on the minimum wage, but again, I dont understand why you insist we dont speak definitively but then you do. you cannot say wholeheartedly that nationalizing industry is a completely bad move. like you said it has its tradeoffs. it makes foreign investment risky, but it also increases venezuelas share of that oil. but from what i know, he hasnt nationalized EVERTYHING nor does he plan on,.
and im sure no one here thought for one second venezuela is a paradise just cuz we think his leader recites great speeches.
as for the rest of ur points, fair enough u make a solid argument. although do understand, ALOT of the anti chavez talk coming out of venezuela is mainly the business class bitchin. now do they have a right to bitch, sure, but there is alot of skewed information out there,
-
I was gonna come in here and read some replies, but it's looks like I've entered a full blown article fight, so I'll just leave.
-
I was gonna come in here and read some replies, but it's looks like I've entered a full blown article fight, so I'll just leave.
actually there was no articles here....just some good ole fashioned science droppin
-
Bradford.
-
. He is also doing many things that are bad for his country. Like nationalizing industry.
i agree with u on the minimum wage, but again, I dont understand why you insist we dont speak definitively but then you do. you cannot say wholeheartedly that nationalizing industry is a completely bad move. like you said it has its tradeoffs. it makes foreign investment risky, but it also increases venezuelas share of that oil. but from what i know, he hasnt nationalized EVERTYHING nor does he plan on,.
and im sure no one here thought for one second venezuela is a paradise just cuz we think his leader recites great speeches.
as for the rest of ur points, fair enough u make a solid argument. although do understand, ALOT of the anti chavez talk coming out of venezuela is mainly the business class bitchin. now do they have a right to bitch, sure, but there is alot of skewed information out there,
A few things...
- It's difficult not to speak with certainty, so we're all prone to it. We wouldn't be saying stuff if we didn't believe its true, and its time consuming to lead every statement with "this is just what I believe, it may not be accurate" Anyways, my point is, most of my opinions are the result of substantail self-criticism. I'm always trying to get things right, and frequently flip flop when presented with new information that seems relevant. On the other hand, virtuoso and others seem to often speak with certainty when they've made minimal effort to contemplate the opposing viewpoint.
- No one thinks venezuela is a paradise. But Chavez is inappropriately worshipped as a liberal hero based on very limited information. Most liberals love him because he talks bad about Bush, but have limited knowledge of his actual policies. People cite random statistics that are in his favor, but obviously took little time to consider what information may disagree with the view of Chavez as a liberal hero.
- Actually, I'm keenly aware a lot of the Chavez bitching comes from the business class. And, this is exactly the problem. It's wrong to think that a society can improve its well-being without the support of the business class. Businesses are what lift people out of poverty - not government hand-outs. When I say Chavez is not a liberal savior, I say it mainly for this reason. His policies are anti-business. Businesses are scared to operate in Venezuela because of Chavez. Without businesses how does an economy support its people? They can't just live off of oil revenues forever, and that is another reason why Chavez has issues. He's using an asset that he did not create to buy support. Without oil revenues his policies would be disasterous... so why is it his right to spend the oil revenues to win public support? His policies in many ways are very similiar to bush's. Take advantage of short-term gains to win political points... Bush raises government spending, which has short-term benefits (ie a raise in spending pushes the economy to grow) but long-term consequences (ie. blowing oil revenues makes you look like a hero, but your country pays for it eventually).
- If chavez wanted to do good, he could focus on helping his economy grow, instead of scaring away businesses. He could try to make their banking system more efficient. He could be working to improve transporation. The airports in venezuela are horrible, and Chavez is making them worse. He gave a monopoly on air travel to venezuelan firms by kicking out foreign firms. When I was in venezuela it took me half a day to cash a check for 1,000 US dollars. That's absolutely ridiculous. Businesses can't fuction well when its that difficult to transfer money. And they certainly can't function well, when the president is going around nationalizing some industries, and heavily regulating others.
Anti-business = Anti-society.... unfortunately, far-left liberals don't want to realize this much. People like Bill Clinton knew it tho.
-
Cambodia, or maybe Thailand
-
Japan
-
nationalizing an industry is real good for a country who wants to get out of a poor periode. Just look at quebec, when they nationalized the hydroelectricity, this made quebec enter the 20 century in force and now that province is equal to the rest of the country.
-
a non-white country? why, I'd rather be dead sir
-
anybody that pickd a 3rd world country or a communist country or post-communist country is full of shit. u would not live there fucking idiots. i doubt u guys would put your money where yo mouth if if u kno what i mean.
-
Probably Japan or UAE
-
dominican republic