Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez dies

[500]

Better than a country that's survival is based on aid from America

My country dealt very fine without US. But Chavez without selling oil to America is total bankrupt.

 

[Skyman]

My country dealt very fine without US. But Chavez without selling oil to America is total bankrupt.

Atleast Chavez has something to sell. It's their resources, they can sell it to anyone. Your country survives on American aid.

 

[Durvag]

RIP....
In the thread I see the whole world love chavez, I think it is the truth...and there will no need for more evidence......IT IS THE TRUTH......

 

[500]

Atleast Chavez has something to sell. It's their resources, they can sell it to anyone.

If he could why he did not do that? Fact: the main income of your anti American "fighter" came from America. Spare me of woulda coulda.

Your country survives on American aid.

Nonsense. American aid is only 1.5% of our GDP and its in weapons not money.

 

[shree835]

Better than a country that's survival is based on aid from America

Chini Guy...Your word is fit for your friend.

 

[kawaraj]

Nonsense. American aid is only 1.5% of our GDP and its in weapons not money.

Let me remind you of some history that your country's establishment per se was at mercy of UN big five, especially the US, considering the tragic inhumanity done by NAZI Germans. You have nothing to be proud of and please stay humble.

 

[gambit]

Yes I agree . You cant elevate poor by taking from the rich alone . But its certainly an option among many others (forgive my crappy language skills ).I mean how do people become rich? They do it by exploiting either natural resources or human resources . Neither of these are anyone's monopoly.Natural resources of a country belongs to its people .All its citizens have equal rights to it. So the state has every right to "take from the rich" .

Right...So you are a communist.

Here is where you are grossly wrong. There is no such thing as 'rich' or 'poor'. There is only 'richer' or 'poorer'. On either side of me (and you) are people who are poorer than and richer than. Get it? So if you support the idea that the government have the right to take from 'the rich' then you support the idea of an absolute dictatorship because the government can say that compare to those on one side, you are a member of 'the rich'. It does not matter if you are poor compare to the other side. As long as you can be consider 'rich' by someone, you are 'rich'.

Further, it is funny that you say human resources are not entitled to being a monopoly. That mean your intellectual labor is worth -- NOTHING. Any idea you have, be it a piece of extraordinary literature to a piece of extraordinary invention, DOES NOT belong to you but to the government.

I love it when communists paint themselves into a corner.

 

[Skyman]

If he could why he did not do that? Fact: the main income of your anti American "fighter" came from America. Spare me of woulda coulda.


Nonsense. American aid is only 1.5% of our GDP and its in weapons not money.

Your entire aid based economy depends on America. Without America you have no country kid. They fund you (with our money), arm you and protect your existence.
Never forget it.

Chini Guy...Your word is fit for your friend.

The way the Indian economy is collapsing, I'd say India is not much different.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Chavez (and also Fidel Castro) have been the defiant little guy standing up to the big boys.

As regards "bribing the poor" is concerned I think that is legitimate, a government has to help its poor people get education, healthcare, public transport etc.

Shutting down opposition media is less legitimate. He should have countered opposition media with his own media.

But ultimately I think it is corruption and inefficiency which matters most.

 

[500]

Let me remind you of some history that your country's establishment per se was at mercy of UN big five, especially the US, considering the tragic inhumanity done by NAZI Germans. You have nothing to be proud of and please stay humble.

You should not talk about things that you have no clue about. UN merely suggested two state solution, which was immediately rejected by the Arabs. US was neutral and embargoed arms sales to Israel.

Most importantly, it has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is Chavez. And here what he was doing:

* In the morning Chavez was sending a tanker to US.
* In the afternoon he was receiving a big check from US.
* In the evening he was going to TV and cursing the imperialistic US.

Thats basically all he was doing.

 

[gambit]

Chavez (and also Fidel Castro) have been the defiant little guy standing up to the big boys.

As regards "bribing the poor" is concerned I think that is legitimate, a government has to help its poor people get education, healthcare, public transport etc.

Shutting down opposition media is less legitimate. He should have countered opposition media with his own media.

But ultimately I think it is corruption and inefficiency which matters most.

Chavez did. The newspaper's media is ink. Chavez's media is bullet.

 

[shree835]

Your entire aid based economy depends on America. Without America you have no country kid. They fund you (with our money), arm you and protect your existence.
Never forget it.



The way the Indian economy is collapsing, I'd say India is not much different.

Chini Guy this Quote defines you nicely:

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― George Carlin.

 

[BARBARIAN WARRIOR]

r.i.p

he was great leader....

 

[Rig Vedic]

Chini Guy this Quote defines you nicely:

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― George Carlin.

Kindly avoid labels that might be considered racist.

Chavez did. The newspaper's media is ink. Chavez's media is bullet.

If Jimmy Carter was satisfied with the election it surely could not have been too bad.

 

[born]

Right...So you are a communist.
Here is where you are grossly wrong. There is no such thing as 'rich' or 'poor'. There is only 'richer' or 'poorer'. On either side of me (and you) are people who are poorer than and richer than. Get it? So if you support the idea that the government have the right to take from 'the rich' then you support the idea of an absolute dictatorship because the government can say that compare to those on one side, you are a member of 'the rich'. It does not matter if you are poor compare to the other side. As long as you can be consider 'rich' by someone, you are 'rich'.

Your understanding of communism is somewhat twisted. Well not suprising because of u being an American. The problem is you are seeing things in a pure capitalist manner . There is no such thing as 'rich' or 'poor' ? Really ? What will u call people who cant afford to feed their childern. You call them 'richer' because there are people who are 'poorer' than him? What kind of a logic is this?
I think you wrongly relate communism to dicatorship. I am from a small state called Kerala in India. It has a place in history, for the first democratically elected communist government is from my state . Before independance the farm lands were owned by landlords and the farmers where mere slaves who worked for the landlords. After independance the land reform act was passed and government annexed the land from landlords and gave it to the farmers . The basic idea is farm lands belongs to farmers. If u call this dictatorship then so be it . For me the government was doing what is right .

Land Reforms in Kerala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further, it is funny that you say human resources are not entitled to being a monopoly. That mean your intellectual labor is worth -- NOTHING. Any idea you have, be it a piece of extraordinary literature to a piece of extraordinary invention, DOES NOT belong to you but to the government.

I love it when communists paint themselves into a corner.

You are right, the result of my intellectual labour should bring benefits to myself and the society . My hardwork is not a tool that can be exploited by some people so that they can make more and more money. Communism is the idea of a free society where the people are free from oppression and scarcity. You cant relate communism to dictatorship because dictatorship is the rule by one man whereas communism is the exact opposite. In dont understand why you Americans hate communism so much.
Also its funny that you conveniently ignored my argument on natural resources .